I was thinking...

You know the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun," and how "time drags," when you are just waiting for the clock to tick for the end of the day? There are also times you are working and time just is moving much faster than you thought it would and you can't complete your tasks.

If time itself fluctuates and not just our perception, doesn't that mean that Einstein's theory of relativity is incomplete? E=MC2.

Since time is multiplied 4 times in this equation, a minor fluctuation in the flow of time would have a significant impact on the results especially when approaching the speed of light.

If this is correct, wouldn't that mean that faster than light travel is not only possible but inevitable?

The problem is in measuring the flow of time. You would have to be able to step out of time to observe the flow of time. You can't measure a foot by taking a ruler and saying that is a foot. You need a standard to tell what the foot is equal to. After the standard is set, then you can take that ruler to measure other things. You can't measure time using time to measure it.

So, how do we know time is constant?

The more I think about this, the more I vacillate between two schools of thought, all because of the primary question you have posed.

As I've thought about it, I have the sliver of an idea forming of how to test the flow of time, and yet I cannot figure out (due to a lack of specific knowledge) how to conduct the test itself.

My idea has to do with the influence of gravity. Gravity can affect electromagnetic forces, like light, radiowaves, and electricity. Since our body is full of tiny electromagnetic impulses, these too might be influenced by a fluctuation of gravity. In fact, they might even be more susceptible to such variations than the electrical or mechanical clock. Hence, while a clock is ticking away at one speed, your bodily impulses are happening at an atypical speed. Of course, this is just theorizing and little else.

IMHO, I think it is a matter of perception based on bodily energy levels....like a clock operating on a low battery, your body functions at a different speed. For instance, if I don't have my coffee in the morning, time seems to fly by no matter how fast I try to move. Once I have my coffee, I seem to be able to accomplish more while keeping track of time. If I eat and have a coffee, then I accomplish even more during that same period of time. So, I think it is much more about energy level, and very much like the battery analogy I used.

Now, how do you measure and quantify something like that, especially since it considers time as a constant?

Perception is not keen enough to detail the relative nature of time as it it known in physics at any kind of normal velocities we would encounter.

Perception of time is relative due to the cognitive functions of the brain and has nothing to do with how time slows the faster matter moves through space.


In order for the relative nature of time as it is detailed in the general theory of relativity to actually be perceptible you would have to have some serious differences in velocity going on between frames of reference.


The faster you move through space, the slower through time.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Light_cone.svg

The human brain however is a whole other ball of wax, and its true that a portion of what we perceive is made up, and a portion is actually based on data, a smaller portion of that data based perception is actually used for awareness. ie what we perceive is partly made up and of that part that is not made up a smaller part is what we are actually aware of . . . .

Awareness is a subset of cognition. This leaves us in a position where time may seem to fly by, what is really happening is you are not aware of the moments in between.


BTW E=MC2 is not an equation used to determine the relative nature of space and time, but of the conversation of matter and energy.


More like

Delta(Time)/SQRT [1-v^2/c^2]

Where delta(time) is the time interval between two co-local events for an observer in some inertial frame.

v is velocity and c is the speed of light.

Never mind.

I started this to have a philosophical discussion on the perception of time and how it affects our lives. It could have been an inteteresting " What if" conversation. Won't happen now.

sorry coudnt help it

I am all for a philosophical discussion about the perception of time, I would say that given all of the maths you used in your OP it was rather looking like a conversation about both the physics of time and the perception of time, which was what my post was replying to . . .


Dan Dennet is a fantastic philosopher who wrote a book called consciousness explained. A great book that details experiments used to show how consciousness can reassemble data based on expectations.

Really cool stuff, and most of the experiments can be setup at home and tested for ones self, quite telling when you yourself control the experiment that reveals gaps in your awareness of conscious events.

If you would like I could let you borrow the book. Send me your email via PM and I will see about letting you borrow it.

Thanks,

What if...

A persons individual 'perception' of time and its 'passage' is directly related to how long that person lives as 'perceived' by the people around them.

and...

Could such a 'perception' actually alter the passage of time for the individual as measured by an outside observer.

Can your personal perception actually 'bend' time?

Interesting,

That is taking what I was thinking and looking at it from the other end. Is time flow fluctuating and that alters our perception or is our perception "bending" time?

To quote Einstein himself:

"When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, you think it's only a minute. But when you sit on a hot stove for a minute, you think it's two hours. That's relativity."



Time is constant...whether we measure it in bliss & happiness, or tears & sorrow.

That may be, but can you prove time is constant?

We are living in time. If time fluctuates, we fluctuate with it. How do we know it does not fluctuate. Has anyone ever measured how time flows not just the rate it flows with devices that exist within time.

I have often wondered if we can actually effect the time rate of the atoms that are in constant flux arround us...

Without even knowing we are doing it.

If we can cange or effect them they may 'reciprocate' that alteration back to our own 'atomic' structure... Effectively changing our 'rate' as an individual.

time is relative if u have family member is the US Navy

Time stops if you are waiting for a Politician to do the right thing.

I meant to explain last night that I was referring to the US Naval Observatory. This is where time is kept and how we know what time it is - so...if u have a relative in the Navy....time for u is relative....

LOL

So, that is where relativity and time collide. I knew we could find it!

Essentially what I am talking about is we say time is constant. But we say that because a clock ticks by a second every second. But a clock is measuring time within time.

What I am thinking is maybe our perception of time is related to a fluctuation in time. Something our cognitive ability is aware of but physical measurements, like a clock, cannot track.

How do we know for an absolute fact that because a clock ticks by every second as a second that time is in fact constant? What if our perception picks up the differences in time flow and not the other way around? What would that mean regarding all we know about physics, relativity and time travel? Everything in science has been measured within time. What would you be able to do, if you could step outside of the time flow? Wouldn't faster than light travel be not only possible but inevitable?

Say for instance that you can stop time, like a few movies have told in stories. If you only walk 10 feet and start the flow of time again, you have in fact moved faster than the speed of light. Light was frozen with time. When the time started again, the velocity you moved at would be infinite. You could literally go anywhere in the universe without one second ticking by. Granted, in this case, velocity would be an irrelevant term. That would be closer to the bending of space. So you don't move but you have traveled.

time is not really all that abstract. Time has been measured by man....for a long time...(sorry couldn't resist )


time was measured by the rising & setting of the sun and by the sun's position in the sky & by the change of the seasons all of these things being relatively constant, and by some , the stars constellations as well- distance relative to time was measured by how many suns or moons or seasons (we will arrive when the fields are green) it took to get some place.

I still tell time by the sun's position in the sky to this day

think of a sun dial - an ancient timepiece, and the length of the day would tell, along with warming temperatures, and even the night stars -tell us when to plant

time has also been measured in the form of history by oral tradition long before books were common (your grandfather's grandfather's second cousin brought our family to this country - for example)

our perception of time is rooted quite solidly in the reality of our everyday world, not in fantasy

You missed the point.

All these things you are talking about to prove time is constant exist within time. All are a measure of time by our understanding of time.

How can you prove time is constant? Using something that exists within time would, by a matter of course, be affected by changes in time.

If you take a bowl of oil and water and stir it, they mix for a temporary period. But will separate again. Inside the bowl everything reacts to any inputs into the bowl. This is like our universe. Everything in our universe exists withing time. Like the bowl, anything within time is contained withing time. How do we step outside the bowl to see time from the external point of view?

no I did not miss the point at all. I think (it seems to me) like ur trying to make something from nothing

time is measured concretely as I already described