Theory Of Waiting Time

[herme3]

I have a new theory about how the entire timeline of the existence of the universe happens almost instantly. Everything from the beginning to the end of the universe happens so quickly that time itself is not measurable without our minds. Our lives are part of the timeline that has been slowed down by our brains. If there were no intelligent brains to slow down the speed of time, everything would seem to happen instantly. Think about the fact that you never waited billions of years to be born.

 

Time itself is change. When the slightest movement of an object occurs, this is a frame of time. The detection of time of our brains creates our reality, in something that I call, "waiting time". This is the imaginary spaces of time between the frames of time in which events occur. Without waiting time, every event in the universe's timeline would happen one after another. There would be nothing in between the events that happen in our universe, and there would be no way to see what happens between the beginning and the end.

 

I really can't explain how our brains add events to create waiting time between events. However if you think about it, it seems obvious that if we weren't here, there would be no way to detect time between events that happen. Please let me know what you think about my theory. Thank you.

[revprez]

I have a new theory about how the entire timeline of the existence of the universe happens almost instantly.

 

First, I'm not sure if this should be in Relativity. Since your idea primarily addresses mental events, this probably belongs in the Psychiatry/Psychology or Philosophy.

 

Everything from the beginning to the end of the universe happens so quickly that time itself is not measurable without our minds. Our lives are part of the timeline that has been slowed down by our brains. If there were no intelligent brains to slow down the speed of time, everything would seem to happen instantly.

 

I assume you're suggesting that our minds perceive the passage of time differently than perceived by, perhaps, an unattended instrument. Since we cannot draw conclusions from unobserved data, your "theory" lacks any testable feature.

 

Think about the fact that you never waited billions of years to be born.

 

Time itself is change.

 

With respect to what? We don't speak of an interval in position as a change (dx) unless we have some parameter, say λ, so we can write x(λ) and express change as dx/dλ. I think this problem in your definition of time is fatal to your

"theory."

 

When the slightest movement of an object occurs, this is a frame of time.

 

So, assuming by motion you mean within an inertial frame of reference, a perfectly rigid body at its ground energy state experiences no change in its time coordinate.

 

In special relativity, we have [imath]d\tau = \sqrt {dt^2 - dr^2}[/imath]. You can easily see that a motionless body in the observer's frame (dr = 0) experiences the same passage of time (dτ = dt) as the observer.

 

Rev Prez

[radiohead]

This is all very true, except a couple things. Without our intelligence, you're right, we would have no actual concept of time, but before we had the intelligence we do now, like the Aztecs, the sun was their "clock". Same with the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, etc. So, your change part of it is correct.

 

But, if I could add on to it. Maybe, it is just the "conscious" mind that can differentiate between time intervals. When you sleep, you lose track of time. I know that i have slept all day on accident and thought I was only asleep for a few hours.

 

Basically, what I think is there is no such thing as time per se. We have created a system of intervals that creates our days, weeks, months and years because the sun isn't very reliable between the way it rises and falls around the world and how days shorten and elongate as the year goes by.

 

The basic gist of your theory is correct, I would just look into it some more and fine tune it.

[herme3]

But, if I could add on to it. Maybe, it is just the "conscious" mind that can differentiate between time intervals. When you sleep, you lose track of time. I know that i have slept all day on accident and thought I was only asleep for a few hours.

 

That is exactly what my theory was about. Sleep is a much better example than when I said you don't wait billions of years to be born. I wish I had thought of that.

 

Anyway, another way to state my theory is to say that time moves instantly when a human mind is not conscious. If you could sleep for millions of years, a lot of things will probably change after you wake up. However, it all happened instantly because your mind wasn't conscious to slow down time.

[radiohead]

Oh, sorry. I thought you were saying something else. My bad.

[BlackDog]

wait, isn't it true that without my consciousness, nothing exists to me, let alone time? this is philosophy, how can it be physics?

 

 

-shami

[Ophiolite]

When you sleep, you lose track of time.

No you don't. You can train yourself to wake up at any predesignated time with an accuracy of plus or minus five minutes.

[Nicholas]

wait' date=' isn't it true that without my consciousness, nothing exists to me, let alone time? this is philosophy, how can it be physics?

-shami[/quote']

 

If time wasn't a measurable physical quantity it wouldn't belong

in physics!

[insane_alien]

i'm down to +/- 3minutes now

[Luminous]

To go back to herme3 thing about the motionless body not experiencing time change, because i just put up a post about this earilier somewhere else, a motionless body doesnt mean "stading still", or being frozen and not moving, or whatever. But if every particle and atom in your body, or in some object stoped moving(which is probably impossible) time for that object would cease. There would be no movement, no energy use or transfer, and i would stop ageing. But like i said, every electron and neutron and blah blah blah of every atom would have to be stoped...

[eon_rider]

I assume you're suggesting that our minds perceive the passage of time differently than perceived by, perhaps, an unattended instrument. Since we cannot draw conclusions from unobserved data, your "theory" lacks any testable feature.

 

Respectfully, I think one can't say that all of this theory

lacks ANY testable feature.

 

F-MRI's and other brain scanning advances may allow testing of whether specialised neurons fire with certain frequencies to mark the passage of time.

Measuring neural activity and human perception with imaging is improving every year. Neuroscience is very much a hard/solid, measurable science.

 

2003 Reith lectures have some cool stuff on what scientists are learning about

brain function and human perception of the world.

 

"The 2003 Reith lecturer is the noted neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, Director of the Centre for Brain and Cognition at the University of California (San Diego). "

 

Dr. Ramachandran is very very cool. Explains things clearly.

 

best,

 

eon.

 

PS. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lectures.shtml

 

The BBC hosts the site.

I think you need real player to listen.

You can read the text but it's flat compared to the listening to it.

I think, but I'm not sure, that Dr Ramachandran expands on the text also.

[michael37607]

 

But' date=' if I could add on to it. Maybe, it is just the "conscious" mind that can differentiate between time intervals. When you sleep, you lose track of time. I know that i have slept all day on accident and thought I was only asleep for a few hours.

 

[/quote']

 

I lose track of time pretty bad when I'm awake...