1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Speed of our reality perception…

  1. Jul 21, 2011 #1
    I'm really puzzled at our perception of fundamental physical reality…

    I’ve got it right or all wrong? (I am no scientist, just a curious person, so please bear with me.)

    Some constants first:
    - Planck time (PT): 5.4×10−44 s
    - Planck length (PL): 1.6×10^-35 m
    - Electron radius (EL): 2.4×10^-17 m
    - Light speed (LS): 299792458 m/s
    - Electron speed (ES1): 299792456 m/s (4 GeV beam)
    - Electron speed (ES2): 2200000 m/s (in hydrogen atom)
    - Age of Universe (AU): 4.3*10^17 s (13.7 billion years)

    Imagine one electron traveling 1 meter at the speed ES1 (almost as the speed of light), and that we record this with a perfect recording system (for this thought experiment let’s dismiss all sorts of technical or physical limitations).

    If I am not wrong, main stream science says that space-time is continuous and not discrete, but nonetheless, let’s imagine that space-time is discrete, where the smallest measurable length is Planck length. (In the end, it doesn't really matter if time is continuous or discrete, Plank length is still the smallest theoretical length, while smallest practical measurable length is way larger.)

    As I’ve already learned, a fundamental particle, like an electron, is not really a solid particle but it exists as a “wave packet” that is distributed over space-time, so, in truth it would move in steps much smaller than Plank length or Plank time, because it is distributed over many space-time points…

    But to make things simpler, let’s say that we count only the steps which are of “full” Plank length.

    So, my question is, how many frames per second (FPS) would we record with such a perfect camera?

    Well, the way I see it it’s simply 1m / PL, which is about 6x10^34 FPS.

    Now, what looks most curious to me, almost incredible, is that if we were to review such a recording in a human time-scale, on our TV, which is 30 FPS in USA, where we’d look just 1 second at every frame (step of that motion) it would take us about as much time as the age of Universe multiplied by itself, to review it!

    Which means that our perception of reality is incredibly slow compared to reality itself (if I remember it correctly our awareness “records” few events per second), so, we actually miss out most of the happening in this reality/Universe…

    Which makes me consider that if there were some kind of aware beings who operate in a much faster time-scale, it might happen that they already visited us, or might be right here among us, but we weren’t / aren't even aware of them – to them we might appear as if we are frozen in time, and they might pass right besides us and we’d not even notice it…

    Is it only me finding this fascinating?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 21, 2011 #2

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    First of all, electron "speeds" are not "constants"! They are certainly not considered to be one of the fundamental constants. And neither is "electron speed in hydrogen".

    Secondly, it seems as if you are trying to "look" at the trajectory of an electron with this "perfect camera". Is this true? If it is, then you haven't clearly defined the mechanism of tracking such a thing (are you shooting photons at it to know where it is at any given position? Are you detecting its charge?). Inevitably, you are basing your "observation" on a number of things that you take for granted, the same way you take for granted that you can watch a tennis match and follow the trajectory of a tennis ball, without realizing that what you are doing is observing light that hits the tennis ball and then enters your eyes.

    Zz.
     
  4. Jul 21, 2011 #3
    Interesting read, one thing which I think may limit the ability for life in 'faster' reality or whatever are maybe:

    The constants of nature perhaps will put a limit to what sort of 'life' can actually exist. I believe your suggestion is these lifeforms might see what to us is just a second as what to us feels like a millennium (much greater orders of magnitude in your figures!) so before long by living in that reality, things like the speed of light 'catch up' with the rate of their reality.

    By living in a reality where time is effectively 'slower' before long you might actually be able to see light come toward you (Which you wouldn't see, as it's light which hasn't reached you yet) . I can't think of consequences this would have though, but I'm sure you can quickly draw up some other interesting 'scenario's' other constants would imply.
     
  5. Jul 21, 2011 #4

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    This post is rife with bad physics. I don't think you've understood the basic postulate of special relativity at all. Light doesn't "catch up" with anything, and the proper time doesn't slow down your own reference frame. Do you see your time slowing down, even though to some other galaxy, you are actually moving utterly fast?

    Please do not ignore the PF Rules that you had agreed to, especially our policy on speculative posts. These rules ARE enforced, they are not mere window dressings.

    Zz.
     
  6. Jul 21, 2011 #5

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I think you are talking about how "fast" your brain can process information. While being able to process and communicate faster could be considered experience reality faster, it is not the same thing as what you are implying.

    Let's say that my brain used Light instead of electro-chemical reactions and impulses to operate. I would probably be able to "think" faster than any computer we have today. However, I am still 100% constrained to the rules of physics. If I wanted to move I'd still have to apply the same forces and use the same amount of energy as everyone else. Apply too much force too quickly and SNAP, broken bones. So even if you could think faster than most all that really gets you is more "time" to think. (Having a hard time using accurate terms for all this)
     
  7. Jul 21, 2011 #6
    You have a good insight though about experience and time. For example someone living on the surface of a neutron star would experience life at a relatively slower rate and you would be born and dead before they finish their dinner. Of course they would also be thinking slower relative to you, so they would experience a normal life from their reference frame.
     
  8. Jul 22, 2011 #7
    I see you focused more on the details than on the idea which fascinates me, all fine of course.

    I agree, perhaps instead of an electron I should mention some "less-complex" object, like tennis ball, or a bullet. And sure, I am aware that perfect camera can only be recording light bouncing back from that object. Moreover, as it happens I even know that the resolution of a single visible photon to motion is on the order of about 10^−15 seconds (this is the time period for one oscillation of the photon wave). And that movements shorter in time than this just won't impact the behavior of the photon much. Which means, that we can never make such a perfect camera which would record motion of objects in all the details (steps, frames) as it really happens (that's why I said in beginning let's dismiss physical and technical limitations of such perfect camera).

    But in the end, the main point I wanted to present is that any motion has at least (if space-time is discrete) as many steps (frames) as there are Plank's length fitting the distance that object travels (length travelled / Plank length).

    Which brings us to the idea, that one second, which for a human perception of time is something “comfortable”, might in reality be something like a century to potential beings that operate on a much faster time-scale in perception…
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  9. Jul 22, 2011 #8
    Yes, that's the main idea, thanks for catching it that well. I was thinking how to present it, and I am sure I didn't do a very good job… And I am not sure if this idea was already presented by someone else, I guess it had to happen, because it's not hard to think it up, it’s just not something we'd normally consider...
     
  10. Jul 22, 2011 #9
    Ohh yes, that's a good and valid point, and I did consider it as well. But such beings, who might operate on a much faster time-scale, in sense of perceiving existence, would not have to be made of flash and bones like we humans are...

    I imagine, that if there are such beings they must be much smaller than us. I relate our physical size to our perception of time, is that wrong? I mean, we humans, being close to 2m tall, are huge compared to fundamental particles, and I imagine that there could be beings still much bigger than fundamental particles, but also much smaller than us, meaning, they could also physically move much faster (not just think/perceive faster) -- the bigger one is the more energy one needs to move own body parts, and the more "fragile" at the same time... Whatchathink?
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  11. Jul 22, 2011 #10

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't know. Perhaps you can post in the Biology forum. They might know a little more about how the nervous system works.
     
  12. Jul 22, 2011 #11
    But you do agree, if such beings were really small, that the energy they had to spend for own movements would be much lower than ours, thus, this idea of such beings is physically possible? But then, I kinda see your point (even if you didn't imply it), such beings would also have to have very small physical brains, and thus, even if they were aware of reality they would not really have any good capacity of understand it, as we do. (Of course, if we assume, that all brains work in alike manner, well, they could have something like CPUs instead of the brains, but still, we'd come to some physical limit of how big such beings would be, and I guess they wouldn't be really small, in sense, that perception of time for them would really be dramatically different that ours.)

    Seems, that we humans, are just of an ideal physical size to experience reality in such (self-aware) "fullness", not too small to be too stupid, and not too big to waste too much energy on own movements.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  13. Jul 22, 2011 #12

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    You have a universal time scale for the period of a photon wave? Whoa! When did you discover this?

    An assumption that has no verification.

    You made several speculative assumptions here. At what point do you actually use valid physics? Maybe these are the "details" you don't care about? Unfortunately, as Meis Van deRohe used to say, god is in the details!

    You might also want to re-read the PF Rules that you had agreed to. That's another "detail" that you should not overlook.

    Zz.
     
  14. Jul 22, 2011 #13
    In this “thought experiment” I assumed that space-time (ST) is discrete, that there are as many steps (frames) in motion as there are Plank's length fitting that distance (length travelled / Plank length). Well, in truth, even if ST is discrete there are more steps but just not measurable…

    But what if ST is continuous, which is a more likely scenario by what current science tells us, then how many steps are there in every motion? And this fascinates me in whole different way, in sense, how's motion even possible? Even if we had a perfect camera (to exaggerate, God’s camera), without any physical and technical limitations, but which still has to record in discrete steps, it could still never record motion of objects the way they really moved, right? Since in continuous ST, if we try to discretize ST with such a perfect camera, there are infinite steps...

    I just cannot apply this idea of ST being continuous to how motion happens. Even a simple movement of my own hand, perceived through this idea, looks like a miracle to me ;)

    Can anyone help me out with understanding this (motion in our reality)?
     
  15. Jul 22, 2011 #14
    Of course I value the details - I am just no expert on this, so, I shouldn't post then?

    Also, I did say that your focus on details is fine as well, I just think that those less-than-perfect assumptions are not changing the validity of idea which I proposed. Am I wrong, if so, how?
     
  16. Jul 22, 2011 #15

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    The problem is that many of your assumptions are Not Even Wrong!

    This is neglecting the fact that you think a "photon wave" has only one time scale. Check the period for, say, a radio wave versus a gamma wave.

    Zz.
     
  17. Jul 22, 2011 #16
    Your respected memeber (science advisor "Chalnoth") said that to me some time ago, I'll quote him now:

    I asked: "What would be the shortest time to get enough photons for generating a sensible image with current technology, if you might know? Actually, I am asking how many frames per second is possible to capture using best current technology."


    I think you are just too harsh at people who are not experts, sorry.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  18. Jul 22, 2011 #17

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    You are neglecting (another detail, perhaps?) the fact that VISIBLE light is being discussed in the quote you cited! He is estimating the UPPER LIMIT of the visible light spectrum!

    Photons are all electromagnetic wave, and covers the whole known spectrum of EM wave, not just visible light!

    Here's the problem. You need to learn how to crawl first before wanting to run the sprint at the Olympics.

    Read this: https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3404598&postcount=4

    Zz.
     
  19. Jul 22, 2011 #18
    Again I'll quote your respected memeber:

    In just simplified all of this... and later I even extended my explanation to be more correct, by saying (I guess you missed it):

    In this “thought experiment” I assumed that space-time (ST) is discrete, that there are as many steps (frames) in motion as there are Plank's length fitting that distance (length travelled / Plank length). Well, in truth, even if ST is discrete there are more steps but just not measurable… And "Chalnoth” above explains this, I think, very well.
     
  20. Jul 22, 2011 #19
    ZapperZ, I understand your view, it isn't easy to deal with such ignorant/stupid people (as me) on the daily basis.

    But I'd still like to ask you to focus on what was my main idea. Which is, perception of time and motion...

    It would be really delicious, if experts here would just take the main idea, and talk among themselves to see, where it can bring us.
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011
  21. Jul 22, 2011 #20

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    You and I must read the same thing and understand them differently. To me, what you quoted here is exactly the argument on why your question makes very little sense. So I'm not sure why you are using it against me, rather than looking back at your original post and seeing why it really isn't a valid assumption.

    BTW, even IF there is such a thing as Planck length scale, it doesn't mean we can detect it.

    http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-physics-einstein.html

    So yes, experts ARE talking among themselves about this topic. We may not do it here on a public forum, but we ARE talking!

    Zz.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Speed of our reality perception…
  1. Perception of colors (Replies: 4)

Loading...