Time as a Local Phenomenon

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
In discussing frequency response and bandwidth with Einstein, and as a result of a PM from MadIce, I have hit upon some interesting insights that I thought were worth sharing and (if anyone is interested) discussing.

We often hear that "time is a local (relative) phenomenon", or alternately expressed in lay terms as "time is not real" or "time is an invention of man's mind". Scientifically, this is better expressed in terms of time variation with respect to an observer's reference frame as one's velocity begins to approach that of light (thanks to Einstein). But let's really hone in on the issue here: Time requires an observer or, at a minimum, an observation (measurement). This is due to the fact (as I have stated here often) that the metric of Time is characterized by Matter in Motion. If we, as human beings, were not capable of conscious observation, then we would have no means to conceive of "tense" and, in essence, there would be no such thing as our own, local Time.

With the understanding of the requirement for an observer/observation for Time to become "real", we can further investigate why it is that our ability to observe results in the perception of Time as a linear flow, which we interpret as tense. It all boils down to the concept of frequency response of any observer (or observation hardware), and the observer's limited bandwidth.

The best example of this that will help us understand the nature of local Time (as well as what happens if we attempt to transcend our limited view of Time) is the human sense of sight and our ability to sense a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum which we call "visible light". By definition, the bandwidth of the human optical sensory system (eye) is limited to the range of 4.3E14 through 7.5E14 Hertz. It is our ability to make visual observations within this operational frequency band that permits us to order the arrow of Time in accordance with these observations.

It is interesting to conjecture about what would happen to our local perception of Time/tense if we were afforded an infinite bandwidth for sensing the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Let's begin by thinking about what might result from simply expanding our sensing bandwidth beyond the visible light spectrum. Currently, because we cannot see beyond this spectrum, we perceive "outer space" to be empty. Yet we know that space is far from empty, as there are radio waves, cosmic waves, and the like propagating all around us. We simply do not see them because they are outside the operational bandwidth of our eyes. Thus we only order our timelines via the Matter that we can perceive to be in Motion around us. If all of a sudden our visual bandwith was made much wider, such that we could visually detect radio waves, cosmic waves, and the like, wouldn't it have a distinct effect on how we perceive Time (Matter in Motion)? I believe it would. I believe it would give us a much finer resolution of perceived Time because there would be a great deal more simultaneous events occurring around us.

Example: We track the time of day by the passage of the sun from horizon, to overhead, to the other horizon. The discrete positions of the sun as it progresses on its transit of the sky give us a certain tolerance for knowing what time it is. By adding more visible Matter in Motion represented by other electromagnetic phenomenon outside the visible light spectrum, we would have more feedback, more information, from which to make a more discriminatory measurement of Time. It could very well result in a perception of Time moving slower than we currently perceive with our existing visual light bandwidth.

If we apply a little bit of calculus to this problem, and examine what happens at the limit as the sensing bandwidth approaches infinity, the logical conclusion is that TIME WOULD STOP, or another way of saying it would be that Time would cease to exist in that observer's local frame of reference. Interestingly enough, this would directly correspond to Transient001's discussions of the Prime Temporal Point. Any observer with infinite sensing bandwith would not discriminate "past" from "future". All Time for that observer would exist within a single observation.

Wild stuff... Any thoughts or comments?
RMT
 
Perhaps, if you only broaden the bandwidth greatly, you only come up in the end with "Time" being the principle main reality existence!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/yum.gif

Einstein, since it is his hundreth year, is still one of the scientists that came up with a broader view, than most people seem to allow. Since a hundred years ago, his views have held, and have been proved by experiments.!

I find that some other forums have no conception of time except to their own time being taken up, and presented with a greatly limited bandwidth of perception. I sure at some point they have a reason that is grounded upon reality also, but then since my computer degree I present such stuff as the future of computer programming, and not as some bias, prejudice screwball that thinks everything should be a National Security item. It is not! It is Science with Religion.

Even Einstein had respect for such ideas, and when further thinking of the sort done by "David Bohm" was presented, Einstein greatly admired that trait also.

And Bohm did meet with Eastern Philosophers that greatly expanded his views on physics. Some of Bohm's work has been tested and has met success while being proved by experiments that prove his physics is something still to consider. Earlier views of his early life again were met with bias and prejudice by some people, but in the end, Bohm's view still hold, and still may be debated for some time to come. Whether his views lead to a new kind of physics also will also have to be viewed in the near future. But when limiting one's self with limited views, one only gets "limited views" of reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Bohm&fulltext=Search

That still is not to say that all of his views on physics are correct either, because even Einstein throw out the fact that he thought that he was wrong 99 out of 100 times.

It (Bohm's) presents though a different version, but again only some things that may be thought about, like the holomovement and such.

I would have to read more than I did last night about Bohm, because still some of ideas may not fit, but still the ones that do fit, are because of not using a limited bandwidth, or a greatly oversimplified greatly enhanced bandwidth, as it seems some physicists attempt to use. Bohm's views in the end may degrade later on in his life, but it keeps things at a certain level until more can be added.

Einstein certainly never went off the deep end either, but thought that some views presented with quantum theory can be explained by placing a limit on the bandwidth of the observer. Perhaps, in the end, a greatly expanded bandwidth is just fantasy, and a limited narrow bandwidth is really limited, but what is needed is the correct bandwidth at the time to further improve the overall aspect of all physics!

If truly, wave form collapse when looking at them, then that bandwidth is limited, and still a narrow view. However, it may seem, reality certainly has not collapsed, and never will. Perhaps, in the end a bridging of views is what is really needed. Again, I find it hard to believe that humans are the center of the reality, but only one aspect of the reality, and certainly the total reality takes a lot more thinking, but at certain points, scientists will fall down, and that is only natural and they should at least to expect to be aware of that!

But limiting self, is not really what Einstein did, he merely lost himself in the process, and came up with a greatly vastly improved version of reality in the end!

Therefore, local is only a limited concept defining a limited reality, which is not really what Einstein did, but to say that anything can not be improved even after the Theory of the So-Called Everything is to limit the existence of humans that may not be total reality in the end.

A bumblebee sees at ultraviolet light, and sees reality that way. Spiders web are greatly crimson, but to us they appear as dull. To an insect though, that greatly crimson spider's web is an attraction to the insect, and thus they are caught!

Human view makes no sense to insects, for their view is different, and strangely different than only focusing on limited bandwidth. When applying greater bandwidth, then perhaps, a different view of reality comes along and physics takes on new meaning.

Meanwhile back the SuperString Theory ranch, it may not mean that String Theory is not useful, for it may indeed be.

But do allow for the interaction of all as another form of a bigger reality which does exist, with broader bandwidth applied!

Perhaps it becomes metaphysics after that, but still metaphysics may be a structure, as much as the small is also a reality.
 
A computer is a great example of limited bandwidth by some people, until you find out that a computer is so really stupid, you have to bestow life upon it by rules, conventions, laws, and applying logic to the program. It is called syntax, but still the Universe is like that also.

It may be though that in the metaphysics view of the Universe, a human can not bestow life upon it, but still it really has no life simply to pursue. It may be a formulation though of a greater logic that has to be applied, while a computer is so terribly stupid, even containing a part of the real universe, such as humans may do, that one has to lose one's self to actually see how logic is applied. Thus only a broader bandwidth will suffice to come up with a different reality about the Universe, and also on what the computer can really acheive. But still with the computer, it will be a false kind of life or intelligence again limited by the rules that apply somewhat with the Universe also. But to say that the Universe is life, is so great a bandwidth as to deny what it simply is --- a fluid vessel that has no life, but follows rules, and it can not break those rules, although humans may allow for warp compactification of those rules, that simply the universe does not allow except in extreme physics. Then, again that may be an oversimplification of the total rules the Universe actually follows.

Somewhere there breeds the real greatly improved bandwidth that are the rules of the Universe of the overall enormous picture that can develop.

Thus, you are all, or may be simply, --- pop-up people!
After the rules are applied!
 
If we apply a little bit of calculus to this problem, and examine what happens at the limit as the sensing bandwidth approaches infinity, the logical conclusion is that TIME WOULD STOP, or another way of saying it would be that Time would cease to exist in that observer's local frame of reference.
Click to expand...
I am still puzzled. If you have an infinitesimal time unit then you could say it approaches 0, but what if time can be quantisized? Another question: How do you go from frozen time to "backwards in time"?
 
Hi MadIce:
Erm... You mean to tell us that "observing is enough"?
Click to expand...
I'm saying observing is the First Cause of everything else. Once an observation is made, it fixes a point in the Massive SpaceTime 3x3 matrix. The observation is what converts 3-dimensional Time into a 1-dimensional Tense within our minds.

For instance: Look at my new avtar. Because it is a 3-D object transformed into 2-D, there are two different ways that you can perceive the blue tetrahedron to be spinning. Which one do you see? Is the larger, blue tetrahedron rotating clockwise or counterclockwise? YOU decide what is reality in observing this object. Someone else observes and could see the opposite reality.

Yet they are both real, true, and accurate. Neither you, nor the person who sees the opposite from you, is "wrong".

RMT
 
OK MadIce,
I am still puzzled. If you have an infinitesimal time unit then you could say it approaches 0, but what if time can be quantisized?
Click to expand...
By using the limit of "delta time" as it approaches zero, all I am doing is invoking the Reimann sum, which is a foundation of the concept of the integral in calculus...that's all. The thing you are pointing out is equivalent to the distinction between a system's "s-plane" frequency response and its "z-plane" frequency response. One is continuous (s) and one is discrete time sampling (z). The transforms between the two are well-established.

To more directly answer your question: Time is quantized only if you choose quantum measurements as the method to make observations. Time can just as easily be continuous if that is how we choose to make observations. This is the distinction between analog and digital views of "reality". Which is "right" and which is "wrong"? Depends on your POV, your reference frame for observation.

Another question: How do you go from frozen time to "backwards in time"?
Click to expand...
Infinite bandwidth sensing capability is not "frozen in time". Rather, it is "beyond time", or external to the concept of linear time. As such there is no "forward" or "backward" once you take on this view of things (i.e. infinite bandwidth observation). From this point of view one sees the entirety of our linear timelines as one complete entity, without a defined beginning or ending. Much as we observe complete entities of Mass at our level of awareness.

RMT
 
Hi RainmanTime

Do you believe you are a conscious observer?

Also do you believe we are all conscious of the same things? not even approaching the same way.

As a race we are part conscious at best and most Men are can only keep track of 4 to 5 things at any one time Women are marginally better at this and can add one or two things more to the list as it were.

There is a simple test sit quietly and answer the question "how hot are my feet?" other than the fact that reading this line will trigger an update on how your feet feel, then think along the lines of how you came to the answer? it was not already there and your "conscious mind" at the moment of the question was not "Consious of your feet" This can be applied to just about everything. I much research the answers find that our "conscious mind" is incapable of being fully conscious. Maybe in the future this will change and we will be better be able to understand Time.

Hope I didn't ramble to far from the subject but i found your first paragraph too specific another experiment, get a stop watch and set it running and turn it face down. Once you think a minute has passed see how long you waited its very likly you waited about 40 to 50 Seconds try this at different times after Coffee, while tired you will see a wide range of results.

Shana2
 
I believe Time evolves around our perceptions. The measurement of time is a man-made concept, for obvious reasons. The measurement of Time has nothing to do with the definition of the dynamics of Time.


Our experience of time will be different depending upon the individual. I think I posed this question elsewhere in one of the forums...but it would be interesting to research what effects different perceptions of time would have on the physical body.

Does the individual who has the capacity to slow down his bio-rythmic rates actually slip into some other operation of frequency?

The reasons for being able to perceive certain "bandwidths" is to prevent the individual from going insane. I know a young woman who has extra sensitive hearing. She can hear sounds from greater distances that most "normal" people. She has to isolate herself inside a specially constructed room quite often to prevent a nervous breakdown. She gets confused if she tries to understand everything she hears.

I would imagine this would apply to perception of Time as well. If one actually was capable of 'sensing' more than their moment in Time, it seems this ability would drive that individual crazy. Input overload.

After many deep meditations of guided imagery, I need to become 'grounded' in the Earthly reality to function. The consiosness has trouble seperating what is the "true" moment in Time as opposed to the meditative moment in Time.
 
I would imagine this would apply to perception of Time as well. If one actually was capable of 'sensing' more than their moment in Time, it seems this ability would drive that individual crazy. Input overload.
Click to expand...

I've always considered this idea. The possibility of a brain that can operate twice as fast; will time appear to slow down for it? I don't believe it would, because the speed at which the photons will hit our eyes will always be constant, regardless. I suppose if the brain interprets signals/pulses from the optical nerve twice as fast, the frame rate would be doubled, but I doubt it would give the subject an illusion of delayed time, just more instances to work with.
 
Imagine if you DID suddenly develope the ability to see( perceive ) NOT only the moment you exist within, but ten minutes of the past as well. How would you seperate what is occurring at a specific moment within that bandwidth of time?

We focus on a very narrow moment in time, and some of us have trouble doing that. If we suddenly did develope a way to perceive a time frame of 10 minutes all at once, the brain may be able to take it in, but the logical faculties would have one hell of a time deciding what moment is occurring and when.

Unless the individual is trained to block out everything except what is occuring at a specific moment within that 10 minute time frame.
 
Imagine if you DID suddenly develope the ability to see( perceive ) NOT only the moment you exist within, but ten minutes of the past as well. How would you seperate what is occurring at a specific moment within that bandwidth of time
Click to expand...

I constantly remember what happened 10 minutes ago as I am currently seeing the current. But, if you are talking about a brain that literally lags 10 minutes behind, it would have to have a buffer worth 10 minutes of senses data.
 
I constantly remember what happened 10 minutes ago as I am currently seeing the current. But, if you are talking about a brain that literally lags 10 minutes behind, it would have to have a buffer worth 10 minutes of senses data.
Click to expand...

Not at the same time you arent. You have catagorized the experiences of a span of Time. Can you simultainously process two moments of Time at the same time? Have you ever run tha experiment of processing mutilple thoughts at once. You imagine yourself sitting in a theatre. There are multiple screens. On each screen you project different thoughts and try to be aware them all at once.

What I was attempting to describe, was someone that could sense more than a specific moment in Time. As an example, during one episode of meditation, I could see shadow figures moving around the room. They didnt follow the layout of the room, but seemed to be travelling in some pattern as though in a different location, totally oblivious to my observation.

This resulted in me thinking that if ( for arguements sake ) that somehow I achieved a state that provided me with an ability to see not only my moment in time, but to view another moment in time as well. If the figures were any stronger than mere shadows, and I could see them clearly, I would then have to seperate their reality from my own.

If we were to expand on this idea, and imagine an individual that could "see" several time lines ( so to speak ) or bandwidths of existence, I would think that that individual would have difficulty maintaining a grasp on his/her place (moment) in Time.

The brain isn't lagging ten minutes behind, but is absorbing a ten minute span of "our" perception of Time all at once. A millisecond of our Time. This is what I am trying to convey.

I used to dabble with Black Magic and other disciplines of the occult. The rituals or meditations resulted with some fantastic experiences. If I did not have a strong sense of my own personal identity and my place in existence, it would be easy to slip beyond the lunatic fringe. The lines of " this " reality diminish, and the possibility of multiple realities become known.

As we explore possible Time Travel in a spiritual sense, caution should be exercised to prevent an unwanted result. What it boils down to is something RMT and myself have stressed many times...Awareness.

If one is not well versed in awareness..their perceptions are probably mot very well tuned either. On the opposite side, if one becomes very aware and allow their perceptions to expand beyond their means, total break-down would occur.

This is a basic conceot of why God does not reveal Himself in total; or His knowledge to any one individual all at once, for the quantity would destroy that individual, of whom is incapable of containing what God may be in His entirety.
 
This reminds me a bit of 'material' and 'non material' thought forms.

For example when you read, you read each word in the sentence. This is material thought form, also notice when you do this you 'read' the word 'aloud' in your head.

However there is another state of awareness, where you can look at the whole sentence. You do not read the words aloud in your head you just look at them and know them. In this non material thought, you can read sentences in the time it takes others to read just a couple of words. But this is difficult to acheive. People who can read pages of writting in very little time are not only usually using a photographic memory, but also non-material thought forms. Allowing them to process information in rapid time.

Another example is when you are trying to explain a concept in your head in with that 'inner voice' (the one you hear when you think aloud in your head). This is a material thought form. its linear ant takes time.

However you can also experience the non material thought form, where by you omit the need to explain it to yourself with the inner voice, and instantly know it in zero time. Its hard to explain as most people aren't aware these are seperate, even if they have experienced both.

What i am getting at, is that is easily possible to experience moments of now simultaniously under the correct state of mind. As the non material/material thought form theory, suggests. There is most likely a part of you that you are not consciously aware of, that already does this, with all moments of now you experience.

Kind regards,
Olly
 
If we apply a little bit of calculus to this problem, and examine what happens at the limit as the sensing bandwidth approaches infinity, the logical conclusion is that TIME WOULD STOP, or another way of saying it would be that Time would cease to exist in that observer's local frame of reference. Interestingly enough, this would directly correspond to Transient001's discussions of the Prime Temporal Point. Any observer with infinite sensing bandwith would not discriminate "past" from "future". All Time for that observer would exist within a single observation.
Click to expand...

RMT...what you describe here encourages me. What Transient001 calls the Prime Temporal Point, I would call by another name. To give you a clue, who (approximately 2000 years ago) refered to Himself as the light of the world? Interesting that the dual nature of light is evident in this same person's hypostatic union! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

If you go down that path, knowing what you know about light and what happens if a "traveller" travels at the speed of light, and the fact that the literal c isn't attainable in a physical world. Kinda interesting, eh?
 
All forms of awareness. We all have different levels of awareness that effect our perceptions. What we input and how well we can process the information. It is a process of catagorizing the information into a logical format for our faculties of reason to understand, remember or formulate a reaction.

Under normal circumstances there isnt any problem of processing information, but it depends upon the abilities of the individual. The speed readers do undergo rigorous training to achieve comprehension of the information. The same applies to those disciplined in various forms of meditation, or pursuit of esoteric experiences.

My point is that most of the population would not be capable of absorbing more moments of time if it exceeded a greater "bandwidth" and should this be taken under consideration by anyone trying to achieve such a goal.

There is a movie that contains such a situation. The kid can see cowboys of the old west as well as his own moment in Time. As he sits at the breakfast table, he sees gunmen having a gunfight outside the windows. As the gunfight is taking place, bullets are flying all around and the gunfighters are moving for position, the boy is reacting to their movements.

He ducks to avoid being hit by bullets, and shifts around to get out of the way of the running gunfighters. This causes quite a reaction of his family of whom can not see anything but their own moment in Time.

Now imagine if you added in a tribe of resident Indians living at that local before the cowboys, and maybe add people of other time periods into the mix...how in the world would one be able to remain sane if you could experience all of this during one moment in Time?

It would become too much information to process, or to make a logical choice of how to react. Walking down the street, you would have to be able to maintain a clear "view" of the way things are in your moment. This would be very difficult if you are also experiencing wandering buffalo, and bands of Indians while the cowboys are riding their horses through town as the rum runners are being chased by the police and wives are welcoming their soldier boys home from WW2 at the railway station as the local teenagers are cruising down the main street of the 50 or 60's era.

This is why we experience a narrow bandwidth of Time. To be capable of experiencing anything more than what we do currently, would be almost impossible to accomplish. Er...Normally.

This is where "Outside of Time" comes into play. As described by Ray in some of his previous posts.
 
Back
Top