Speed of our reality perception…

  • Thread starter Boy@n
  • Start date
  • #26
241
0
I am a bit disappointed that you still don't want to address my question but want to analyze our (miss) communication. It looks like that for you, thinking about this is more interesting than pondering on the idea presented here.

The problem here is that you appear to be here to TEACH us "experts" a lesson, rather than trying to LEARN from where your basic premise is faulty.
If it appears so, then I am sorry, but that was not my intention, not even slightly. I was after hearing what other think about all of this. Some, so far, did provide some very interesting replies, and I am thankful to them!

Re-read my first response to your original post. When I look at something, I try to (i) figure out the underlying principle involved, or (ii) understand the starting premise, or (iii) discover the impetus for either a question, suggestion, or idea. Notice what I questioned in the very beginning: your concept of what "constants" are, and misconception on how we observed (perceived?) things. If you used these are either the starting point, or impetus for the rest of your query, aren't you in the least bit interested in knowing if they are correct or valid? Because if they aren't, then the rest of what you built on is moot because the foundation is incorrect!
I’d like to kindly disagree with your conclusion in this paragraph. If Plank constants are really exact or not isn’t really important to what I was describing (I mentioned them for easier “picturing” in one’s mind).

The thing is, that we, humans, are “huge” compared to the fundamental building blocks of our physical reality (e.g. electrons), and that the way we perceive time and reality might be very different to the way it’s perceived by potential beings who might be physically way smaller than us.

One of the things we try to strive for here in this forum is not only presenting the "material", but also getting people to THINK for themselves in ways in which, even when they don't have the knowledge, they at least have a systematic way of making an analytical evaluation of any ideas that they either hold, or come across. This skill transcends beyond just physics or science. It allows for anyone to examine and discover what assumptions they hold, and to what degree are they certain on the validity of such assumptions. I tried to convey that to you from the very beginning, hoping that you'd have an interest in trying to learn basic ideas with which we can build things on.

It appears that I was mistaken.
Perhaps experts here might too be attracted to thinking about things which they might not yet consider.


Just tell me, is my idea worth investigating further or not? E.g., might those experts who search for extra-terrestrial intelligent beings be interested in considering it, or not?

If this simple idea has any value, PLEASE, do not expect me to get all the details right, how could you? …that’s why I came here, in the first place, to let the idea out and let the experts decide if it has any value or not.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
241
0
Are you curious about science, or about whatever concepts you come up with?
I am curious about whole of existence, science including, yet, I wouldn't come here if I didn't think that I have something interesting to share. Most of the time I am just lurking, reading many interesting threads. And now, when I make a post, I feel (because of what's said to me) as if I shouldn't.

If it is solely the latter then PF is not for you, as you will not enjoy it.
I am already enjoying it a lot, by reading, why shouldn't I be welcome to post? Though, I'd really appreciate it, if focus would be on where the "juice" is, there, where it matters!

By this I am sure not saying that details are not important, on the contrary, they are extremely important, but by being a layman I am just not the one who can deal with them... isn't exactly that the reason that there are so many experts on so many fields (and even experts don't always agree among themselves)! And please, don't tell me to get at least the basics right, because I already try to, but I manage what I manage. Let me breathe please.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,793
4,570
I am a bit disappointed that you still don't want to address my question but want to analyses our (miss) communication. It looks like that for you, thinking about this is more interesting than pondering on the idea presented here.
What part exactly did I not address? How can I address the high-level idea when the basic premise it was built upon is faulty?

If it appears so, then I am sorry, but that was not my intention, not even slightly. I was after hearing what other think about all of this. Some, so far, did provide some very interesting replies, and I am thankful to them!
And I still question whether you actually understood correctly what you read. I've already mentioned one example where you read it incorrectly (ref: photon "wavelength")

I’d like to kindly disagree with your conclusion in this paragraph. If Plank constants are really exact or not isn’t really important to what I was describing (I mentioned them for easier “picturing” in one’s mind).
Who said anything about Planck constant? Look at the LIST OF CONSTANTS you gave in your post. Do you think ALL of them are "constants"? I challenge you to look at the list of fundamental constants in CODATA, for example, or the NIST website, and find whether all of that items on your list are there. You'll find at least 2 or 3 that aren't!

The thing is, that we, humans, are “huge” compared to the fundamental building blocks of our physical reality (e.g. electrons), and that the way we perceive time and reality might be very different to the way it’s perceived by potential beings who might be physically way smaller than us.
And to be able to address that question, one has to first of all understand SR and quantum mechanics!

Perhaps experts here might too be attracted to thinking about things which they might not yet consider.
Or maybe that's already something that "experts" are doing?! Scientists, BY DEFINITION, are employed to work on things that (i) have no explanation (ii) are not well-understood (iii) are new!

However, these must be looked into not based on ignorance, but based on accumulative knowledge of what we know, so that when we see something new, we know it is new!

Just tell me, is my idea worth investigating further or not? E.g., might those experts who search for extra-terrestrial intelligent beings be interested in considering it, or not?

If this simple idea has any value, PLEASE, do not expect me to get all the details right, how could you? …that’s why I came here, in the first place, to let the idea out and let the experts decide if it has any value or not.
Simple answer: NO.

Why? Because it is unclear what it is that you are trying to suggest. I requested a clarification from you about this difference in time scale, whether it is simply a difference time transformation in inertial frames, or if it is really a different proper time. You never answered. This, along with very puzzling understanding of things you've claimed made for a very jumbled mess.

Zz.
 
  • #29
241
0
What part exactly did I not address? How can I address the high-level idea when the basic premise it was built upon is faulty?
Why not? If you can imagine what my “high-level idea” was/is, why not address that rather than details in my wording and/or meaning?

I am not only layman in physic, I am also Slovenian, meaning English is not my first language.

And I still question whether you actually understood correctly what you read. I've already mentioned one example where you read it incorrectly (ref: photon "wavelength")
I did understand it, but I didn’t pay much attention to correcting myself because I didn’t find it important for the idea itself, and I still don’t. (In my viewpoint, but of course, if at some point some expert wants to analyze this idea, one will have to take all the details under serious consideration.)

Who said anything about Planck constant? Look at the LIST OF CONSTANTS you gave in your post. Do you think ALL of them are "constants"? I challenge you to look at the list of fundamental constants in CODATA, for example, or the NIST website, and find whether all of that items on your list are there. You'll find at least 2 or 3 that aren't!
You are of course right. And even I know (and knew when I made OP) that all of them are not constants, I just used English word “constants” without putting much thought on that wording, I could use word “interesting figures”, and now I see that I should, not only could…

But really, because I haven’t worded it properly we have to invest so much energy to clear this up? The fact I named something a constant which it isn’t doesn’t at all change the idea I talked about.

And to be able to address that question, one has to first of all understand SR and quantum mechanics!
What question, about what is constant and what isn’t?

Or maybe that's already something that "experts" are doing?! Scientists, BY DEFINITION, are employed to work on things that (i) have no explanation (ii) are not well-understood (iii) are new! However, these must be looked into not based on ignorance, but based on accumulative knowledge of what we know, so that when we see something new, we know it is new!
Sorry, I don’t understand what you meant to tell me with this. And I’d not like to ask you to explain it any more for me, because you probably think that you already wasted too much time on me... And I even understand why you'd think so.

Simple answer: NO. Why? Because it is unclear what it is that you are trying to suggest. I requested a clarification from you about this difference in time scale, whether it is simply a difference time transformation in inertial frames, or if it is really a different proper time. You never answered. This, along with very puzzling understanding of things you've claimed made for a very jumbled mess.
IMO, I did answer it. And I did re-phrase my question few times over.

Simply put, with my “silly” imperfect example of electron and perfect camera I merely tried to show, how we perceive time, that we probably never considered that the way we perceive time as normal might be quite different to some other potential intelligent beings (probably much smaller than us in physical size). And thus, we also probably haven’t considered how to try to reach out and find extra-terrestrial life.

As for me, you can lock this thread or let others share in it, if they think they have anything to share. I’ll just kindly bow out, and nonetheless thank you for trying to let me understand whatever you thought I have to understand.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
300
22
I think it is a very interesting idea.

What is perception of time? Is it just a perception, an illusion, can this perception change? Or is it something fundamental. I don't really understand it either. Can there be a human to who 1 minute feels like a second? I don't mean that he is actually moving through time faster, running at supernatural speed etc, nothing like that, just the perception.

The reason why we probably perceive time the way we do, if it is at all something that can change, is that if it feels like a minute just to lift your arm up, it is not very useful, you'd probably lose your attention before you get anything done and longer term goals would suffer, like searching for water, if it would feel like forever. We would have evolved to experience time at a rate that is useful, that feels normal, natural, where you can react to things, but everyday actions run at a comfortable speed.

Anyway it is interesting and I have wondered about it too sometimes. I am not an expert either at anything, these are just a couple of pennies I had. I would certainly like to read others' opinions.
 
  • #31
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,928
4,677
I think it is a very interesting idea.

What is perception of time? Is it just a perception, an illusion, can this perception change? Or is it something fundamental. I don't really understand it either. Can there be a human to who 1 minute feels like a second? I don't mean that he is actually moving through time faster, running at supernatural speed etc, nothing like that, just the perception.
This would require a 60-fold increase in communication speed between neurons and such in your brain. That simply isn't possible.

The reason why we probably perceive time the way we do, if it is at all something that can change, is that if it feels like a minute just to lift your arm up, it is not very useful, you'd probably lose your attention before you get anything done and longer term goals would suffer, like searching for water, if it would feel like forever. We would have evolved to experience time at a rate that is useful, that feels normal, natural, where you can react to things, but everyday actions run at a comfortable speed.
I disagree. The cells in your nevous system can only operate up to a certain amount in a given period of time. Neurons use Ion pumps and Ion channels to operate and it takes time for these to work and for Ions to be generated and replaced. Increased work by these cells, even if it is possible, would generate more heat, use more energy, have more wear and tear, and etc.
 
  • #32
241
0
This would require a 60-fold increase in communication speed between neurons and such in your brain. That simply isn't possible.
I'd guess that some drugs (e.g. cocaine) and some practices (e.g. yoga, meditation, whatever) can increase state of human awareness/perception, but I'd agree that it's hardly something like 60-fold increase..... even increase of two seems difficult, yet I'd say possible.

Since we know how our life style is speeding up, and that brains seems to have more potential than it's currently used, perhaps through natural evolution our brains shall evolve in direction so they work on "higher frequency" than they do today...

So, potential extra-terrestrial beings that might be intelligent and very small in physical size (I'm just guessing that, because in that way higher brain activity can be in better balance with higher body activity) might have a mind which operates at much higher "frequency" than that of a human being. Such mind might not be based on something like physical human brains as we know it but be built in a different manner, maybe something alike computer's CPU (central processing unit)...

Well, nowadays computers are still in some operations, mostly parallel ones, slower than the human brains, but as technology develops I'd say CPUs will become faster and better than a human brain in all aspects (there are already experiments on using quantum states and light communication instead of electricity for much faster computers, which might become available in relatively near future). And of course, CPU is just an example... such "advanced brains" might be based on some completely unknown "construction" to us.

And perhaps when we know enough what consciousness is we might make computers/robots self-aware, and thus create "advanced self-aware intelligent beings". The thing is that such beings might well already exist, yet, we think that they don't because if they did they'd already come in contact with us, but on the other hand, we didn't even consider that they might operate/think at much higher frequency. If that's the case, I'd guess they have no interest in "talking" to us, either for (im)practical reasons (too different time perception) and/or because we are just still too ignorant for them...
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
This should really have been posted in the biology section so that we can have a stab at it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception" [Broken]. There is clearly a limit to how much perception can change, whilst sleep can sometimes shrink hours to instant this does not happen when one is awake.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
241
0
This should really have been posted in the biology section so that we can have a stab at it there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception" [Broken]. There is clearly a limit to how much perception can change, whilst sleep can sometimes shrink hours to instant this does not happen when one is awake.
¸
Much thanks for your post with links. If someone can move this over to the biology section please do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
¸
Much thanks for your post with links. If someone can move this over to the biology section please do.
No problem. I'm afraid it's unlikely you will get a comprehensive answer as we don't have a good enough understanding of the underlying processes.
 
  • #36
Drakkith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
20,928
4,677
Also, be VERY careful with how you word your question and make sure you are asking the right questions. It helps to start with specific questions about the more basic aspects and build up from there. Otherwise the thread won't get anywhere!
 

Related Threads on Speed of our reality perception…

Replies
18
Views
925
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
814
Top