• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Time, Temporality & Perceptions Thereof: What Are They?

Twin_Star said:
Such is the minuteness of its supposed effects, that no instrument built by human engineers is capable of detecting it.

Err, hang on didn't the Gravity Probe B experiment recently confirm some of Einstein's relativistic predictions WRT 'Frame Dragging' and whatnot. I certainly thought so:

http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html

Of course, the sigma level in the published papers might not be enough for certain critics, but i would have thought that's more a matter of taste than anything else...
What I remember of the original report, it was saying that the instruments were insufficiently sensitive for the job at hand. The final 'confirmation'? was arrived at by statistical means and thus the 0.5%. And so we have yet another dodgy test of relativity just like all those that went before.

You may recall in an earlier post with similar tactics:
"In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four caesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15 microseconds compared to the ground based clock." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... irtim.html
"Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium Clock, wrote to Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC 'confirmation' of relativity to stand."
http://www.electromagnetism.demon.co.uk/w4rlectu.htm
http://www.ivorcatt.com/3600.htm
 
Surely as the Gravity Probe B experiment is more recent it tops the research (and conclusions either way) of and older one from the 1970s...?
 
Jerry_B said:
Surely as the Gravity Probe B experiment is more recent it tops the research (and conclusions either way) of and older one from the 1970s...?
You can't expect Ghostisfort to be bothered about things like that, when he's still banging on about what Lavoisier said (or didn't say) about meteorites over 200 years ago!

Nowadays, experts on meteorites can often say from which planet, asteroid or comet they come from, so science is making progress.

And Lavoisier (the father of modern chemistry) did disprove the Phlogiston theory, and so made his own contribution to scientific progress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoine_La ... combustion
 
It's this part of my post that refers to the Gravity Probe B experiment:
What I remember of the original report, it was saying that the instruments were insufficiently sensitive for the job at hand. The final 'confirmation'? was arrived at by statistical means and thus the 0.5%. And so we have yet another dodgy test of relativity just like all those that went before.
The first mention of oxygen I can find is by Michael Sendivogius in 1604, in a book that I'm told was in every major library in Europe at the time. He used heated saltpetre in a submarine of his own design, commissioned by James I of England that navigated the River Thames from Westminster to Greenwich.

Sixty years later Johann Becher replaced the oxygen theory with the phlogiston theory and it was Lavoisier who retrieved the oxygen idea of Sendivogius.
Joseph Priestley (13 March 1733 (Old Style) – 6 February 1804) was an 18th-century English theologian... He is usually credited with the discovery of oxygen, having isolated it in its gaseous state, although Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Antoine Lavoisier also have a claim to the discovery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Priestley
Nowadays, experts on meteorites can often say from which planet, asteroid or comet they come from, so science is making progress.
It's not as though I can trip to Mars and check anything out? Assigning flying rocks to a particular planet is a very dodgy affair, dependant on a thorough knowledge of the said planetary geology. With the present state of earthly geology I'm not convinced. This is what scepticism is all about.
 
Ghostisfort said:
It's this part of my post that refers to the Gravity Probe B experiment:
What I remember of the original report, it was saying that the instruments were insufficiently sensitive for the job at hand. The final 'confirmation'? was arrived at by statistical means and thus the 0.5%. And so we have yet another dodgy test of relativity just like all those that went before.

Okay - dig out that report and show that then.
 
What is time? Can anybody give a definition? And how does it interact with consciousness, whatever that is?
 
It's an American news and current affairs magazine. It doesn't interact with my consciousness much cos I don't read it.

Sorry! A poor gag, I know ;)

I think the problem with this question is the question itself. How does time interact with consciousness? Before you answer that, you have to decide whether time actually exists independently of conciousness.

Good luck! :D
 
TinFinger_ said:
time is an expression of energy

I mostly agree with that. Although you can "cheat" a more simple answer by saying that time is actually a system we use to sequence events. I can't state anything with a huge amount of credibility as my official physics study ended at age 18, but I am am amateur Theoretical Physics student and read a large amount of new theory on this.

I'd argue that time is indeed an expression of energy, and in some theories it involves the relationship between light (energy) and matter. This theory allows time to NOT be a constant and thus allows it to be effected by gravity and motion.

Some of the more arty theories involve time existing in a single state (the present) and the past and future are merely illusions.

Moving on from that I suggest
 
One thing that was interesting to read a few years ago was an article (on the BBC website, IIRC) about people who belong to a small tribe in South America. Their perception of time passing and how they visualise it is diiferent to the way one commonly thinks of it. By that I mean that people tend to see the flow of time WRT the future being ahead of us, and that we move towards it (or that it comes towards us). They instead see the future as being behind them, and that it is experienced as the present as it flows past you into the past. So if asked where the flow of the future is (i.e. events in the coming week), they point over their shoulder.

I just can't for the life of me remember where I read it - I'm sure it was the BBC website, but I can't remember where.
 
Jerry_B said:
One thing that was interesting to read a few years ago was an article (on the BBC website, IIRC) about people who belong to a small tribe in South America. Their perception of time passing and how they visualise it is diiferent to the way one commonly thinks of it. By that I mean that people tend to see the flow of time WRT the future being ahead of us, and that we move towards it (or that it comes towards us). They instead see the future as being behind them, and that it is experienced as the present as it flows past you into the past. So if asked where the flow of the future is (i.e. events in the coming week), they point over their shoulder.

I just can't for the life of me remember where I read it - I'm sure it was the BBC website, but I can't remember where.

FT did a page or two on this recently - possibly on a section relating to language. I can't remember all the details, but it would have only been 3 or 4 issues ago at the very most. I've not got them here or I'd be a little more accurate, sorry!

Kind of related - at least to the idea of the past being 'over the shoulder and behind you' - the spatial representations of time in British Sign Language are pretty interesting. Much of this relies on the idea of the 'past' being behind you and the 'future' in front of you with much of the 'present' happening in close proximity to the body. Signs relating to all these - at least my regional signs - all build on these with various modifiers to describe just how far in the future, in the past, how soon etc.

I'd be interested to see how these signs (and others) have come about. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any kind of 'etymology' for signing as signing dictionaries are pretty cumbersome to begin with and historical usage would be difficult to prove/find nevermind include. Maybe the basis of an MA or PhD in there for someone!
 
I like the idea of time flowing past you, as if you're stood in a river watching the flow make it's way around you. You see the effect of the flow of time only after it has past a certain point and then carried along into the past. That said, one wonders if it's possible to look over one's shoulder.
 
Time must exist because events appear to occur, in specific orders, and causally. These sequences of events couldn't be sequences without such a thing as time.
 
The Times

Since The Times stopped its free website version, the paper has rather dropped off my radar. But today, by chance, someone had left a copy of the Eureka science supplement in the pub, and it is mostly dedicated to The Mysteries of Time.

Articles include:

Time does exist (Philosphy)

Keeping Time (clocks through the ages)

Sleep Time (body clocks)

Can we live forever? (biology)

Time doesn't exist (physics)

Relatively speaking (just what you expect!)

Hawking at 70 (and his researches)

Time travel (S.F. and fact)

and the centre section Flow Chart is about Time travel paradoxes and parallel universes! :D

Serendipity to find this, as "Time is one of my favourite subjects"!

Worth grabbing a copy if you can - perhaps your newsagent still has a copy.
 
Thought this may be of interest to you all.......


Synopsis:

The Illusion of Time with Dr. Bruce H. Lipton
Published on Jun 13, 2013

The right brain senses time in the present moment and uses creativity, the left brain perceives time in terms of past and future and uses logic, and we are caught in the middle. As far as consciousness is concerned, we use our creative thinking 5% of the time, whilst our subconscious mind operates 95% of the time. Time a system, and perhaps the reason why time feels like it is speeding up is because our perception of time is evolving.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.

https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/d5d3dc850933
==================
Time is an emergent phenomenon that is a side effect of quantum entanglement, say physicists. And they have the first exprimental results to prove it.

When the new ideas of quantum mechanics spread through science like wildfire in the first half of the 20th century, one of the first things physicists did was to apply them to gravity and general relativity. The result were not pretty.

It immediately became clear that these two foundations of modern physics were entirely incompatible. When physicists attempted to meld the approaches, the resulting equations were bedeviled with infinities making it impossible to make sense of the results.

Then in the mid-1960s, there was a breakthrough. The physicists John Wheeler and Bryce DeWitt successfully combined the previously incompatible ideas in a key result that has since become known as the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. This is important because it avoids the troublesome infinites—a huge advance.

But it didn’t take physicists long to realise that while the Wheeler-DeWitt equation solved one significant problem, it introduced another. The new problem was that time played no role in this equation. In effect, it says that nothing ever happens in the universe, a prediction that is clearly at odds with the observational evidence.

This conundrum, which physicists call ‘the problem of time’, has proved to be thorn in flesh of modern physicists, who have tried to ignore it but with little success.

Then in 1983, the theorists Don Page and William Wooters came up with a novel solution based on the quantum phenomenon of entanglement. This is the exotic property in which two quantum particles share the same existence, even though they are physically separated.

Entanglement is a deep and powerful link and Page and Wooters showed how it can be used to measure time. Their idea was that the way a pair of entangled particles evolve is a kind of clock that can be used to measure change.

But the results depend on how the observation is made. One way to do this is to compare the change in the entangled particles with an external clock that is entirely independent of the universe. This is equivalent to god-like observer outside the universe measuring the evolution of the particles using an external clock.

In this case, Page and Wooters showed that the particles would appear entirely unchanging—that time would not exist in this scenario.

But there is another way to do it that gives a different result. This is for an observer inside the universe to compare the evolution of the particles with the rest of the universe. In this case, the internal observer would see a change and this difference in the evolution of entangled particles compared with everything else is an important a measure of time.

This is an elegant and powerful idea. It suggests that time is an emergent phenomenon that comes about because of the nature of entanglement. And it exists only for observers inside the universe. Any god-like observer outside sees a static, unchanging universe, just as the Wheeler-DeWitt equations predict.

Of course, without experimental verification, Page and Wooter’s ideas are little more than a philosophical curiosity. And since it is never possible to have an observer outside the universe, there seemed little chance of ever testing the idea.

Until now. Today, Ekaterina Moreva at the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRIM) in Turin, Italy, and a few pals have performed the first experimental test of Page Wooters ideas. And they confirm that time is indeed an emergent phenomenon for ‘internal’ observers but absent for external ones.

The experiment involves the creation of a toy universe consisting of a pair of entangled photons and an observer that can measure their state in one of two ways. In the first, the observer measures the evolution of the system by becoming entangled with it. In the second, a god-like observer measures the evolution against an external clock which is entirely independent of the toy universe.

The experimental details are straightforward. The entangled photons each have a polarisation which can be changed by passing it through a birefrigent plate. In the first set up, the observer measures the polarisation of one photon, thereby becoming entangled with it. He or she then compares this with the polarisation of the second photon. The difference is a measure of time.

In the second set up, the photons again both pass through the birefringent plates which change their polarisations. However, in this case, the observer only measures the global properties of both photons by comparing them against an independent clock.

In this case, the observer cannot detect any difference between the photons without becoming entangled with one or the other. And if there is no difference, the system appears static. In other words, time does not emerge.

“Although extremely simple, our model captures the two, seemingly contradictory, properties of the Page-Wooters mechanism,” say Moreva and co.

That’s an impressive experiment. Emergence is a popular idea in science. In particular, physicists have recently become excited about the idea that gravity is an emergent phenomenon. So it’s a relatively small step to think that time may emerge in a similar way.

What emergent gravity has lacked, of course, is an experimental demonstration that shows how it works in in practice. That’s why Moreva and co’s work is significant. It places an abstract and exotic idea on firm experimental footing for the first time.

Perhaps most significant of all is the implication that quantum mechanics and general relativity are not so incompatible after all. When viewed through the lens of entanglement, the famous ‘problem of time’ just melts away.

The next step will to extend the idea further, particularly to the macroscopic scale. It’s one thing to show how time emerges for photons, it’s quite another to show how it emerges for larger things such as humans and train timetables.

And therein lies another challenge.
 
Just happened across this neat article about how different cultures perceive time.

Time is seen in a particularly different light by Eastern and Western cultures, and even within these groupings assumes quite dissimilar aspects from country to country.

In the Western Hemisphere, the United States and Mexico employ time in such diametrically opposing manners that it causes intense friction between the two peoples.

In Western Europe, the Swiss attitude to time bears little relation to that of neighboring Italy.

Thais do not evaluate the passing of time in the same way that the Japanese do. In Britain the future stretches out in front of you. In Madagascar it flows into the back of your head from behind.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-different-cultures-understand-time-2014-5

This was enlightening about one way I don't seem to fit in well with American culture - obviously I'm on a Southern European schedule! :)
 
Since time and space are inextricably interlinked (cf 'spatial perception', and by analogy, the equally-subjective perception thereof); and, apropos the OP citation about the Amondawa having an outlier perspective on time's passage (reminding me almost of À la recherche du temps perdu): I'm also reconnected to remembrance of reports regarding an Amazonian (or similar) tribal isolate, who had no mental capacity for visual scale.

Living only within the narrow closeup canyons of the dense forest floor, their Father Tedian "closer....further away" intuitive understanding of diminished appeance/vanishing point did not exist. Therefore, invasive outsiders to the tribe, viewed by them in a (to them, extra-dimensional, unprecidented, and probably commercially-driven) open clearing were not seen as standing at a distance .....but instead were seen as tiny people.

I'm now left wondering if this was an apocryphal or real-world story. Help, please, fellow inmates!

ps and a Proust reference before 0600hrs....it'll end in tears.:cooll:

A scary thought.....I've no realistic personal recollection of old Marcel getting a dusting-down, and reconsideration, this side of nineteen-hundred and ninety-nine. I mean in my universe, including on here (I haven't checked the 'dex...surely he's been mercilessly sauvaged here, in the past??).

Oh, @Loquaciousness please come back from your exile, and talk again some super-psych to us...my weltanschauung's gone all wobbly since you left:oops:
 
When I saw this thread title, I thought "That sounds interesting!"...

When I did my teacher training course in 82 I took a module on the history and philosophy of science, and I had to produce an essay on a related subject, so I wrote about Time.

I'm not going to attempt two transcribe 26 pages of closely packed hand-writing here, but it shows where my interest came from. One idea I mooted was that the concept of 'a flow of time' may have come with the development of water clocks - but very likely the flow of rivers had anticipated that idea by a few thousand years! (Still, water clocks did try to emulate a regular flow of time.)

Anyhow, who started this thread?

OH! (And I'd forgotten all about about it!)
 
Didn't someone (it may have been me) post a thread many moons ago about another tribe/group who thought that time flowed past us? If asked about whether the future was conceptually, they would point over their shoulder. To them, time's flow was only apparent after it had gone past you - which actually makes more sense to me, on the face of it ... ;)

I was talking to someone about this the other day and wished I could recall the details. I either read or heard something about a tribe or ethnic group in (I think) central / southern Africa who quite reasonably consider themselves to be facing the past, which can be 'seen', whilst the unknowable, and therefore invisible, future is behind one's back - the exact reverse to what we're used to.

Perhaps we're thinking of the same thing.

As for the concept of day turning to night turning to day, it interests me that in the visual language of film and TV it's generally understood that a fade to black and back up again to a new scene represents a reasonably long passage of time (with moving pictures anyway). Many years ago at college this had come up and I'd theorised that it's a simulated night time or even period of unconsciousness to indicate that the old scene should be put to one side and that what follows is new and quite seperate. My question to the lecturer was: do children (in our society) pick up editing techniques instinctively or do we have to learn how to understand movies? And if an Amazonian tribe with no previous exposure were shown a simple filmed story featuring the 'fade to black' convention would they understand it as a passage of time, or just assume a large bird has flown past, casting a shadow...or something? Would they in fact find a film based on the 'montage' style of editing easier or harder to understand?

(She didn't know).
 
Doesn't the fade to black part just indicate "insert commercial break here"?
 
do children (in our society) pick up editing techniques instinctively?

I don't think so. Not consciously enough to use them in their own story-telling anyway.

Continuity editing as we know it did not fully evolve until sound films had been around a few years. Commercial movies were expected to use conventions to establish a version of reality. Departures from this - unsignalled flashbacks etc. were regarded as experimental and likely to lose audiences in every sense.

Modern editing is much faster, showing the influence of pop videos, Far Eastern practice etc. Visually oriented kids pick up quite a lot. It is necessary, however, to teach these techniques as children's notions of story-telling remain primitive even when they are exposed to sophisticated material as consumers.
 
Yes, modern editing tends to be far more 'cutty' (there are exceptions, Kubrick for example - I suppose he doesn't count as 'modern' in the sense you mean) but apart from pandering to shorter attention spans, or at least different expectations, all the cinematic storytelling techniques we recognise have, as you say, a longish history in the developed world. Since the dawn of cinema the steady trend has been towards a more economical approach. That's not really anything particularly new - cutting to a closeup before a piece of action such as a hand picking up a telephone occurs in the frame is a waste of time and looks unnatural (although this kind of sloppiness can be seen in very old films from the 20s and even 30s).

Obviously the early scene changes in cinema were often signalled by a title card such as "later that day.." and the FTB is a refinement of that - not that captions are not still used to guide the viewer today. Despite the trend toward more and more frequent cuts, rarely is the golden rule broken that a picture edit should be 'motivated' by new action or a reveal of something previously hidden in the scene, or other 'new information'. Pop videos might be counted as an exception as often the aim is to create a very fractured narrative. Fashions do change...I can't remember the last time I saw a dissolve, and not that long ago it would have been unthinkable not to cover up the jump cuts in interviews or talking heads with (sometimes fairly silly) cutaways.

Any road up, this isn't a thread about cinema and TV or course, but it's maybe relevant to culture-wide ideas about how time can be 'visualised', represented, concertinaed or dilated in the mind's eye.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't really understand this Quantum stuff - but here's a story that has both "Quantum" and "Time" so I'll stick it here I guess?

Quantum experiment reveals time really CAN flow backwards

Time travel may be possible - for sub atomic particles, at least, a new experiment has found.

Physicists have discovered that heat can spontaneously flow from a cold quantum particle to a hotter one under certain conditions - effectively reversing the 'arrow of time'.

While the discovery doesn't advance the possibility of building a time machine, it does show the quantum world operates under very different rules, researchers say.

The new experiment 'shows that the arrow of time is not an absolute concept, but a relative concept,' study coauthor Eric Lutz, a theoretical physicist at the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany, told Science News.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...iment-reveals-time-really-flow-backwards.html
 
I would say that our perception of time is limited because we are physical world creatures and in that physical world, entropy always increases (entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity). ...

It now appears we have demonstrable evidence that (at least to the extent it's framed via thermodynamics) the arrow of time can be reversed.

Reversing the thermodynamic arrow of time using quantum correlations
The second law permits the prediction of the direction of natural processes, thus defining a thermodynamic arrow of time. However, standard thermodynamics presupposes the absence of initial correlations between interacting systems. We here experimentally demonstrate the reversal of the arrow of time for two initially quantum correlated spins-1/2, prepared in local thermal states at different temperatures, employing a Nuclear Magnetic Resonance setup. We observe a spontaneous heat flow from the cold to the hot system. This process is enabled by a trade off between correlations and entropy that we quantify with information-theoretical quantities.

FULL ARTICLE: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03323.pdf
 
Back
Top