30th August 2005 - 03:53 AM
Time one of the most fundamental elements of the universe, but is our understanding of its true nature not as perfect as we believe? Could it be that Time is not one entity, but rather two slightly related entities that have been molded together out of shear ignorance? Here is my humble theory for the disection of the masses.
Time has two branches: Time-distance and Time-volume( Td and Tv)
Time-distance is our measurement of time( ie. it is 2:00 o'clock, or the earth takes 365.25 days to orbit around the sun)
Time-volume is our perseption of time. ( ie. a watched pot never boils)
The brunt of this theory deals with Time-volume and our perseption of Time. In order to more fully understand this theory or idea, you must understand what I mean by Time-volume. Think of it like this: Everything has a bubble of time. These bubbles are subjective, so my bubbles are different than yours. These bubbles are filled with Time-volume. When we begin to have an experience with that object we make a connection with its bubble. We then begin to syphon out the Time-volume. The amount of Time-volume that we get it dependent on two factors:
1)EXPERIENCE - This deals with repition. An easy example would be a tv commercial. The first time you see it, it takes a certain amount of time. The second time you see it, it takes a considerable less amount of time, in that it seems to have gone by faster (if this has never happened to you, you should try it some time)
2) CONCENTRATION - This deals with the amount of concentration that you put on the passing of time. If you are concentrating all of your energy on watching the file load, the time it takes to load will be considerably longer than if you had gone and had a snack and come back.
These two factors are proportional the amount of Time-volume that you recieve. Experience is indirectly proportional and Concentration is directly proportional. That is to say that the more Experience, the less the Time-volume. The more the Concentration, the more the Time-volume. That is pretty much the jist of Time-volume, it you have questions, post them.
Our perseption of time has always been skewed, in that one day 5 minutes might feel like 10 minutes and the next day 5 minutes feels like 2 minutes. Why is that? These phenomena occur because we try to take Time-volume and make it Time-distance. This conversion is always skewed because one cannot take volume and convert the measurement into distance. My example is: If you take a pitcher of water that is 1 liter and pour it on a table, you may produce a line of one foot. If another person took that same amount of water and poured it, they might get a line of 3 feet. The perseption of time is subjective. We must stop trying to put Time-volume in the measurements of Time-distance.
2nd September 2005 - 06:38 PM
Time is a human perception between two different states. Whether it the cyclic ticking of a clock or the change between night and day back to night, our minds correlate time through changes of state. We compare these change of state to each other to form a time scale.
Our minds prefer rhythmic changes with a steady frequency, rather than the random period between random changes of state, even though random changes of state can also reflect time changes, i.e., are still heading to the future.
Random time or events without uniform cycle seem to imply time being a finite substance similar to mass that does not always disippate at a steady rate. One chunk of time potential to form a mutation can ripple for thousands of years into the future. It is like the potential energy wihtin a time dilation quanta being released into the bogged down limitations of inertial reference, taking a much longer time to dissipate. For example, a cross-roads of life choice in one second, can ripple through the rest of one's life, i.e., a compact time quanta being fluffed out into inertial space and time taking years of random and/or destined time releasing events to fully dissipate.
26th October 2005 - 10:34 AM
It is interesting that you are raising a question that we as inhabitants in the 21st century has taken for granted.
For millennia, the only reliable clock was the cock’s crow.
In an agrarian society, the only measures needed to regulate individual and social lives were based on the sunrise, the sunset and the passing of the seasons.
In our modern society, in spite of our ability to measure time with an accuracy of one millionth of a second or more, we remain remarkably imprecise in how we measure time. It is astonishing that we do not all agree at once: the millennium must finish on 31 December 2000, just like the first decade in the decimal system ends with the number 10 and the next begins with the number 11. It does appear that popular sentiment always prevails over common sense and science.
The fact that we can measure time with a great precision gives us no guarantee that we understand what time is. The question of what the past, present and future is as baffling as the question of duration.
In his book, “Direction of Time” Hans Reichenbach proposed that “open” and “closed” causal chains form the experience of our natural universe.
An open causal chain would mean that A causes B, B causes C, C causes D, and so on ad infinitum.
In a closed chain it would mean that A causes B, B causes C and C causes A. This would mean that it is possible to travel back to the past, meet one’s grandmother as a young girl, marry her and become one’s own grandfather.
Such absurdity to many has over time been viewed upon as a real possibility in certain respected circles of science.
Although it appears Einstein is to be blame for giving us the Theories of Relativity where he shatter the Clockwork World of Newton, the bigger culprit I think is our Quantum Theory based on the Copenhagen Interpretation. Quantum mechanics is built on our incomplete understanding of nature. In Richard Feynman words: “Yes! Physics has given up. We do not know how to predict what would happen in a given circumstance, and we believe now that it is impossible—that the only thing that can be predicted is the probability of different events. It must be recognized that this is a retrenchment in our earlier ideal of understanding nature. It may be a backward step, but no one has seen a way to avoid it”
On your poll, I am not sure what to vote.
16th November 2005 - 03:36 AM
Time,, i feel,is a fuel so to speak.
where as its existence becomes a factor in creation.
and also its non existence becomes a negative plane.
in total negativity or non existence of time,
creation is not possable..
20th November 2005 - 01:35 PM
While it is appropriate to view time as a entity by itself (at low velocity and from certain "simple" frames of reference)... the concept of "space-time" is "indivisible" and links it with "everything" else. There is no measurement of anything without time and the measurement of that "thing" can affect time. Obviously the measurement of that "time" affects that "thing" as well. We do not presently know exactly what the interdependence is... but it will exist.
26th November 2005 - 09:24 PM
Thanks for all of the great responses. I would like to add a little more to the discussion. Just a disclaimer, I am only in high school (10th grade), so if it seems that I don't know what I am talking about, its because I don't. These are just wild ramblings that occupy my thoughts until I have to get them off my chest. Anyway, here's some more odd thoughts to ponder upon.
DEATH: the foundation of time?
I have wondered, do animals have a conception of time? I do not believe that they do, at least not the way that we understand time. If that is true, why don't they? Is it because we know that in the end we are going to die? Every human knows that they are going to die at some time. Animals don't. With this realization that death is inevitable, we know that there is something called the future. With an idea of the future comes the idea of the past, leaving us in the present.
past present future
This is the underling foundation of our understanding of time. We realize that events happen, and there is something that connects those events. That something is time. The period between event and event become time, but what was time? There must be some way of measuring it? Thus came the Earth's orbit and a division of the distance it takes to make a full revolution around the sun. With this we had a system for measuring time. Something constant. All I am trying to say is that there is a distinct difference between the time that we relate to the distance around the sun and the time that we experience in our day to day lives. The time that we experience is not constant, it is fluxuating. It acts like a fluid. The time that we perceive is something that we do not understand. What I am trying to assert in this insensible mass of words is not so much that there are two different entities, but that the time we experience should not be measured by the system of time that deals with the Earth's orbit. Perceived time is a time unto itself. It follows a different set of rules. It is the perceived time that we are so fascinated in as a society. My "theory" is more of a pet peeve that I wish to share with the world. All I ask is to view the perception of time differently than the time it takes to revolve around the sun.
PS: Again, I am only in 10th grade, so if this is completely wrong, feel free to tell me. These are only my humble ideas.
26th November 2005 - 09:26 PM
Sorry, that is me on that last post. I forgot to login. I am the same person that posted the original post and poll.
4th December 2005 - 12:40 PM
Hi 2leftfeet and others,
It is my belief you have two types of time ... the first is psychological time and it is related to life processes and is not a very good time keeper since it is a survival mechanism and interact with us in an "economical" fashion such as in "sleep". The other type of time is event driven. Time can be measured by a series of evenly spaced "events". We can do this with vastly greater "reproducible" precision than hexa's millionth of a second.
What is not stated is that we do not have a full appreciation of time since we do not have a full appreciation of the extra dimensions in which time plays a role which is every bit as important as the one we think it plays in "Space-time". It is a missing piece of the jigsaw. Full dimensional mobility in all nine spatial dimensions will show a different perspective on time as part of that whole.
Time travel "may" be possible once such "mobility" is possible since the Universe itself is event driven and simply accounts for the various processes in it "energetically" through "propagation".
I suggest this thread for more insight into the entire problem and all ideas...The altering of time, Is it possible for someone to do so?
4th December 2005 - 06:54 PM
At this time, I have no idea how I would respond to your poll. I guess it is about time I spend some time considering time. In the mean time, look into picking up a book by Paul Davies, About Time. Paul Davies is not a physicist, he is a Professor of Natural Philosophy. But , IMHO, he does a great job examining the physical construct and precepts regarding time.
P.s. I believe animals have a conception of time. I do not think they quantify it the way we do, but they certainly experience night and day differently (diurnal -vs- nocturnal behavior), they "understand" cause and effect relationships (i.e. my dog knows that if I say "sit", he will only get a treat after he sits), and they "understand" death (the survival instinct). I also think that animals, including humans, perceive the passage of time cyclically as well as linearly- most likely a derivative of the day/night and seasonal cycles.
10th January 2012 - 01:39 AM