I "Exploring Time Perception Across Different Regions of Space"

[EntropicThinker]

TL;DR Summary

TL;DR: I’m curious about how time is perceived in different regions of space, particularly in relation to gravitational forces and motion. We know time dilates near strong gravitational fields, but can we define a constant or formula that describes time perception at various points in the universe, depending on local conditions? I’m interested in existing work or suggestions on how this concept relates to current understanding.

Hello, everyone!

I’ve been thinking about time and how it’s perceived across different regions of space, and I wanted to share an idea I’ve been considering. As we know, time is relative, particularly when we factor in gravitational fields or objects moving at high velocities. This led me to wonder: is there a fundamental constant that defines how time is experienced in different locations across the universe?

On Earth, we define a second based on atomic clocks and understand how gravity, velocity, and other conditions influence time. But could there be a universal constant for time perception that changes depending on the local conditions of space? For instance, in regions with minimal gravitational forces or far from large masses, time might be experienced differently than near something like a black hole.

I also envision time not as strictly linear, even though we experience it that way. Picture time as bending and looping, like infinite circles that interact with each other. These loops could overlap in ways that reveal how time is perceived differently in various regions of space. While I'm not entirely sure if this is the best way to describe it, the idea is that time might "bend" and overlap, especially in extreme environments. These loops might represent different perceptions of time, with lines stretching over distances of billions of kilometers. How these lines interact could offer insights into how time is experienced depending on gravitational and motion forces.

Could there be a mathematical equation that helps us understand how time would be perceived in regions with minimal gravitational forces or in extreme environments like near black holes? Could different "regions" of space have their own local "time constants" that, when accounted for, provide a more precise understanding of time perception?

I’m curious if anyone has explored this relationship or if there are existing equations that might address these questions. My goal isn’t to challenge mainstream theory but to better understand the interaction between time and space, especially where time dilation and relativity come into play.

I’d love to hear any thoughts, suggestions, or insights on this issue. Apologies if this has been already been covered, if this has already been covered quite extensively in physics or in this particular forum, I'm only 16 so my knowledge may not be that extensive and I regrettably dont spend that much time here. Also if I was getting a little too presumptive with my idea of time I apologize.

 

[Nugatory]

Could there be a mathematical equation that helps us understand how time would be perceived in regions with minimal gravitational forces or in extreme environments like near black holes?

There is, and it is really easy: time flows at a rate of one second per second everywhere.

 

[Dale]

Are you asking about time perception, like a psychology question, or are you asking about physically measurable time rather than psychological subjective sensations of time?

You use the word “perception” several times, which makes me think you are asking about psychology. But the rest of the post doesn’t seem to be focused that way

 

[PeterDonis]

time is relative

Coordinate time is relative. But coordinate time has no physical meaning anyway.

Proper time, which is the time actually registered by a clock as it travels along its worldline through spacetime, is not relative. It is an invariant.

On Earth, we define a second based on atomic clocks

Yes. And that definition works for proper time for any clock, anywhere in the universe.

and understand how gravity, velocity, and other conditions influence time.

We understand how those things, which really come down to spacetime geometry and the geometry of particular worldlines in that geometry, cause different worldlines to have different lengths. You are using the term "influence time" to describe that, but that's not a good term. Spacetime geometry and the geometry of worldlines does not "influence time": proper time ticks at one second per second for every clock along its worldline. What you are talking about is the relationship between the lengths of different worldlines of different clocks. That's not a matter of "influencing time". It's just geometry.

But could there be a universal constant for time perception that changes depending on the local conditions of space?

No. See above.

 

[PeterDonis]

I also envision time not as strictly linear

This is getting into personal speculation, which is off limits here.

 

[phinds]

My goal isn’t to challenge mainstream theory but to better understand the interaction between time and space, especially where time dilation and relativity come into play.

In that case, you should avoid pop-science presentation and study actual physics. Once you have done so you will understand why your question(s) in this thread are not based in actual science.

A good place to start would be to read a bunch of the threads on this forum regarding time, although a better place would be a text book on Special Relativity, which is understandable at the high school level and which will set you straight on some of your misunderstandings.

 

[Ibix]

The amount of time a person measures is $\int\sqrt{\left|g_{ab}\frac{dx^a}{d\tau}\frac{dx^b}{d\tau}\right|}d\tau$ where you carry out the integral along the path that person follows through spacetime. That essentially means that the time you experience is the "distance" you travel through spacetime (distance is in scare quotes because there are technical issues that may bite if you're not careful). As others have noted, you will never experience anything odd about your own flow of time because all clocks on the same path through spacetime experience the same time, including your own biological processes.

The time I measure you to experience is somewhat more variable, and is not always uniquely defined. That is, you usually have some freedom of choice to define the rate at which someone else's clocks tick. There are constraints on that (it's not a total free-for-all) so, for example, if we meet up and move apart and then meet up again the clock rates we can assign will average out so we agree on the time we both experienced (we may experience different elapsed times, but our calculations will always agree what they were).

 

[EntropicThinker]

This is getting into personal speculation, which is off limits here

I understand that personal speculation is agains the rules , but my intention wasn't to stray from the established theory. I’m simply wondering if there could be an extension or alternative perspective on time perception in different regions of space, based on real-world observations of relativity and spacetime geometry. I’m still working within the framework of general relativity.

 

[EntropicThinker]

Coordinate time is relative. But coordinate time has no physical meaning anyway.

I agree that coordinate time is relative and doesn’t have a direct physical interpretation in certain contexts. However, my question isn’t about coordinate time itself, but rather about whether there’s a more comprehensive way to describe time in different regions of space, particularly when considering how spacetime geometry could affect perceptions of time. The goal that I want is to connect the abstract concept of time with its subjective experience under different physical conditions.

 

[phinds]

I understand that personal speculation is agains the rules , but my intention wasn't to stray from the established theory. I’m simply wondering if there could be an extension or alternative perspective on time perception in different regions of space, based on real-world observations of relativity and spacetime geometry. I’m still working within the framework of general relativity.

No, you are not. GR (and SR) are very clear that time passes EVERYWHERE at one second per second. You are, as Peter has pointed out, confusing coordinate time with proper time. Please get clear on these two concepts.

 

[phinds]

The goal that I want is to connect the abstract concept of time with its subjective experience under different physical conditions.

Subjective experience of time has nothing to do with physics. Go study psychology.

 

[EntropicThinker]

The amount of time a person measures is $\int\sqrt{\left|g_{ab}\frac{dx^a}{d\tau}\frac{dx^b}{d\tau}\right|}d\tau$ where you carry out the integral along the path that person follows through spacetime. That essentially means that the time you experience is the "distance" you travel through spacetime (distance is in scare quotes because there are technical issues that may bite if you're not careful). As others have noted, you will never experience anything odd about your own flow of time because all clocks on the same path through spacetime experience the same time, including your own biological processes.

The time I measure you to experience is somewhat more variable, and is not always uniquely defined. That is, you usually have some freedom of choice to define the rate at which someone else's clocks tick. There are constraints on that (it's not a total free-for-all) so, for example, if we meet up and move apart and then meet up again the clock rates we can assign will average out so we agree on the time we both experienced (we may experience different elapsed times, but our calculations will always agree what they were).

Thank you, this is a quite interesting answer to my question. Thank you for addressing the parts that I was quite confused about

 

[PeterDonis]

my intention wasn't to stray from the established theory

Here is what I quoted from you:

I also envision time not as strictly linear

What you "envision" is not "established theory". If you want to not stray from established theory, then you should not be talking at all about what you envision. You should be talking about what you have found from valid references like textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. That's how you learn what established theory says.

I’m still working within the framework of general relativity.

Not in what I quoted from above, you're not.

Again, if you want to work within the framework of established theory, you need to know what it actually says. That means you need to be looking at textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. Just "envisioning" things is not enough.

 

[PeterDonis]

The goal that I want is to connect the abstract concept of time with its subjective experience under different physical conditions.

That's easy: the clock you carry with you ticks at one second per second, and that's what you subjectively experience.

All the stuff about "time dilation" has nothing whatever to do with subjective experience. It has to do with coordinate-dependent quantities.

 

[EntropicThinker]

Subjective experience of time has nothing to do with physics. Go study psychology.

I understand what you're saying about the distinction between subjective time perception and objective time in physics. I just wanted to explore how these concepts could interact, and I didn't mean to overstep into areas like psychology. I appreciate the clarification and will keep that in mind moving forward.

 

[EntropicThinker]

Also if I was getting a little too presumptive with my idea of time I apologize.

Well there's my apology, I apologize again sorry for any misunderstanding

Here is what I quoted from you:


What you "envision" is not "established theory". If you want to not stray from established theory, then you should not be talking at all about what you envision. You should be talking about what you have found from valid references like textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. That's how you learn what established theory says.


Not in what I quoted from above, you're not.

Again, if you want to work within the framework of established theory, you need to know what it actually says. That means you need to be looking at textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. Just "envisioning" things is not enough.

 

[Ibix]

The goal that I want is to connect the abstract concept of time with its subjective experience under different physical conditions.

Your experience will always be the same because all clocks (including your inbuilt time sense) behave the same. In any circumstance where one part of your body might experience a different rate from another you'll have been torn apart by tidal forces long before.

To expand on what I said above, how other people's clocks look to you (if you look at them through a telescope) can also be calculated directly. It requires a couple of passes through the integral I wrote down, although you'll need a good computer in any non-trivial circumstance. However, you need to subtract out the light speed delay to translate "what I see on your clock" into "what time your clock shows now" (that's why when we meet up there's a unique answer - there's no light speed delay at zero distance), and in curved spacetime you have a lot of freedom on how to do that subtraction. That's where the subjectivity (or "time is relative") comes in - but that's not what you experience. To the extent that you experience someone else's time, you experience what you see of their clocks, but you know that's affected by the (in general) varying travel time of light between you.

So "experience" is a great tool for thinking about direct measurements. But what you are thinking about seems to be actually interpretation, which is fairly flexible. Generally you pick the one that you think will make the maths easiest.

 

[Dale]

I didn't mean to overstep into areas like psychology

Ok, so if you are not interested in psychological questions then it is important to understand that there is nothing subjective in the physics concepts of time and they are not about perception.

As was mentioned above there are two different physics concepts of time: proper time and coordinate time.

Proper time is the time measured on a specific clock. That is something that everyone agrees on, but it is only defined at the location of the clock itself.

Coordinate time is a coordinate that is used in many coordinate systems in order to be able to compare times at different locations. It is a matter of convention, meaning that you can decide (within some limits) how you want to define coordinate time. Having chosen a convention, there is nothing subjective about it, and it is based on an arbitrary mathematical choice, not a perception.

I am not sure which of those two is the one you are interested in

 

[pervect]

TL;DR Summary: TL;DR: I’m curious about how time is perceived in different regions of space, particularly in relation to gravitational forces and motion. We know time dilates near strong gravitational fields, but can we define a constant or formula that describes time perception at various points in the universe, depending on local conditions? I’m interested in existing work or suggestions on how this concept relates to current understanding.

Hello, everyone!

I’ve been thinking about time and how it’s perceived across different regions of space, and I wanted to share an idea I’ve been considering. As we know, time is relative, particularly when we factor in gravitational fields or objects moving at high velocities. This led me to wonder: is there a fundamental constant that defines how time is experienced in different locations across the universe?

Are you familiar with the physical principle of homogeneity - which is one of the key assumptions of special relativity? See for instance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogeneity_(physics)

In physics, a homogeneous material or system has the same properties at every point; it is uniform without irregularities.

How would you square this principle with your thoughts. Would you say your thoughts satisfy this principle?

My guess is that you are thinking that there is some underlying, absolute time (as described by Newton), and are trying to fit special relativity in this mold. If that's what you're doing, you're going to have problems :(.

 

[pervect]

A few other comment to expand on my previous remark. Special relativity is homogeneous, the principle is that empty space is the same everywhere. There's no "special place" in the theory. General relativity is more complex, it's not inherently homogenous because the matter distribution is not inherently homogeneous.

It turns out that there GR also lacks any concept of a single number that represents a concept akin to "the flow of time but the argument using homogenity is probably insufficient in that case. The remarks about the perils of absolute time stands, but I have found that the words themselves do not necessarily mean anything to a reader unless they are already somehow familiar with an alternative to absolute time. Such as - and more words here - the relativity of simultaneity.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

The goal that I want is to connect the abstract concept of time with its subjective experience under different physical conditions.

The subjective experience of time is not a physical consideration. This has nothing to do with relativity. If you are waiting for something to happen that you have been looking forward to, for example, it might seem to you as though the clock is moving slower than usual. If working properly, the clock ticks at the same rate as it always does, regardless of your subjective experience.

If you have read about clocks running slow, for example, because they are moving relative to you, that is a description of time dilation that is often used, but it can be very misleading. It could, for example, lead you to think that there is one true time, such as what you mentioned when you spoke of atomic clocks, and other times that are not. But that is a conceptual error.

You can't use just two clocks to determine that a moving clock is "running slow". When your clock and the moving clock are co-located you can compare their readings. But that alone tells you nothing about whether or not one of the clocks is "running slow". You would need to place another clock at some distance away from your clock and not moving relative to it, synchronize it with your clock, and then compare the reading on your distant clock to the reading on the moving clock as it passes by.

If you do that you will indeed conclude that the moving clock is running slow.

But when you synchronized your clock with your distant clock you were using a convention, and there is nothing physical about a convention. Another person, co-located at all times with the moving clock, will conclude that you made an error when you synchronized those two clocks (because simultaneity is relative) and as a result of that error you conclude that the moving clock is running slow. Correct for that error and the conclusion will be that your clocks are running slow.

This is what the others are talking about when they caution you about the difference between coordinate time and proper time. That moving clock could also be an atomic clock, so it is precisely ticking at the same rate as your clock. That is, it is measuring proper time. And your clocks are also measuring proper time, in precisely the same way.

It is only when a simultaneity convention is introduced that we see that coordinate times are different for different observers, but as has been mentioned by others, that is not physical.

You will not achieve an understanding of this without expending the necessary mental effort. And that mental effort involves learning the actual physics, not some description of it. On the other hand, if you are satisfied with understanding only the description of it, you will be left with some cognitive dissonances that you will just have to accept as part of an incomplete worldview. And there is nothing wrong with that. It's what most people do because most people don't have an understanding of even the basics of physics. I'm not saying you don't, I'm just saying that if you want to understand it any better you will have to study it more deeply.