Rubaiyats of Lote-Tree

Master of Time and Dali

Rate this Entry

25 Comments

, 01-28-2008 at 05:48 AM (3926 Views)

Stretch Time? Hey I can do that! From my Meditation Experiences I have realised this too and now Science bringing us the proof?

MIKE HALL has taught himself to stretch time. He uses his powers to make him a better squash player. "It's hard to describe, but it's a feeling of stillness, like I'm not trapped in sequential time any more," he says. "The ball still darts around, but it moves around the court at different speeds depending on the circumstances. It's like I've stepped out of linear time."

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...etch-time.html

Dr. Who here I come. I am a Time Lord now Need a assitant though - Jessica Alba? but not in her current condition

Any volunteers? ;-)

But on serious note - serious? me being serious? off course not! ;-)

The Persistence of Memory

I fell in love with this painting as soon as I saw it. It hangs on the wall where I work and at my desk at home. It expresses the "Elasticity" of time with the imagery of melting clocks.

The idea that Time is malleable and that it can be stretched like a rubber band or even Time can be stopped is relatively a recent understanding for humans. This "Elasticity" of Time was formulated by Einstein with his "Theory of Relativity". Dali captures this scientific idea into an artistic form with the imagery of wilting watches.

But what does the painting say to me?

Time is a very important topic in physics. Physicists are still struggling to understand the concept of time and how it affects our perception of the world. And tied up with time is also the fate of the Universe.

As a poet, I struggle with the individual perception of time. For example when we were kids, a day seemed like weeks, and a week seemed like months and a month seemed like years and a year seemed like an eternity! But as we grow older our perception of time is different. Weeks, months and even years fly by like an arrow. Why this difference in perception? Is our biological clock faster when we are young and therefore time seems to pass slower? and as we grow older our biological clock slows down so we seem to notice time passing faster? If our biological clock remains the same why the difference in perception in time?

What about when we are enjoying ourselves, we seem to forget about time passing all together. Time in this case like Dali's melting clocks, melts away in the background. And also when we are having a boring time at work, time never seems to move and again like Dali's painting we seem to perceive the slowing of time like the slow melting of the clocks in the painting.

And in dreams too, time appears Elastic or even its existence seems to disappear. Is dream an evidence of how we live in a timeless world? Or is it as the painting may be implying (the melting clock on the sleeping head) a concept in our brains? a tool to make sense of this world? Stephen Hawking suggested that real time indeed may be a tool that we use to make sense of the world and therefore 'Imaginary Time' like the concept of 'Imaginary Numbers' is the real 'time' in which we can describe events in the 'real' world.

But either case we know that "real" time whatever it is - neither slows down or speeds up? or does it? Science says time is elastic - is this truth also evident in our individual perception of time?

Yes, it seems

Categories

« Prev Main Next »

Comments

Virgil - 01-28-2008 08:48 AM
A very interesting blog entry Lote. I've wondered too why as we age time seems to fly by. it's something I've given thought to over the years. I used to think it had to do with percentages. A year in the life of a five year old is 20% of his life, while a year in the life of a 100 year old is 1% of his life. So the span, while the same, feels different in the context of one's life. But recently I've reconsidered this. Recent years have shown dramatically how an older person's brain is different than a younger person's. I think scientists are just scratching the surface of this biological phemnomna. For instance a youngster can absorb and learn with greater ease and dexterity than an older person; or how an older person is so much less likey to be impulsive. Yes, we always knew these things, but scientists have recently identified how these characteristics trace back to changes to brain synapses and stuff of an aging brain. So while i have no evidence to link this with perception of time, I can't help but feel that it is related. Perhaps both of my theories contribute to the perception.
PeterL - 01-28-2008 02:21 PM
I have been interested in both aspects of time, subjective time and physical or objective time, for most of my life. I believe that both are flexible. It's easy to change one's own perception of time, and meditation is the ordinary way. There are also other spheres of existence where one can go for dreamtime or similar experiences. Objective time is a matter of the separation between events, and it appears that there are several ways to change that. Relative time is yet a third sort of time, and Einstein borrowed from Lorentz and other Aether theorists to demonstrate the relative nature of time. There is reason to believe that there are regions in the universe where time moves at other speeds than around here.

Oh wonderful time, infinite and unbounded, it's a wonderful thing.
kiz_paws - 01-28-2008 09:16 PM
Lote, this Blog entry was great, loved it, and your ideas./questions you put forth. More tidbits: (1)Persistence of Memory was inspired by a runny piece of Camembert cheese during a hot day in August ... and (2) you can find the original in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, where it has resided since 1934. Awesome... !
Lote-Tree - 01-29-2008 08:53 AM
Originally Posted by Kiz_Paws

Lote, this Blog entry was great, loved it, and your ideas./questions you put forth. More tidbits: (1)Persistence of Memory was inspired by a runny piece of Camembert cheese during a hot day in August ... and (2) you can find the original in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, where it has resided since 1934. Awesome... !

Thanks Kiz. Will you join the Time Lord in Exploration of the limitless dimensions of the Universe?

PeterL and Virgil - do you think Time Exists or is it just a figment of our imaginations?
Virgil - 01-29-2008 02:12 PM
Time exists. Don't get philosophical on me.
PeterL - 01-29-2008 02:37 PM
Time exists. If it didn't then everything would happen at the same time. In physics time is distance divided by velocity. If the oil from a piece of Camembert moves at one mile per hour, how long will it take for it to drip off the edge of a table two feet away?

"Science says time is elastic - is this truth also evident in our individual perception of time?" Without going a detailed explanation of Special Relativity, events happen in relationship to their surroundings. Just as a train whistle changes pitch as it passes us, Our perceptions of speed and time change with our circumstances. If you are excited and your metabolic rate is high, things around you will seem slow, and vice versa.

Another useful concept is "the Arrow of Time". Although many most, and perhaps all, physical processes are reversible, time and those events happen in one direction (on a macroscopic scale), or so it is supposed. Take a look at the wikipedia article on the arrow of time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time

Time is one of the more mysterious things that people deal with. You aren't the first to question whether it has objective existence, and some eminent scientists have taken the position.
Lote-Tree - 01-30-2008 05:35 AM
Originally Posted by PeterL

Time exists. If it didn't then everything would happen at the same time.

But that is just what Quantum Mechanics suggests

Originally Posted by Virgil

Time exists. Don't get philosophical on me.

But philosophy is Fun

Have fun but be pragmatic
PeterL - 01-30-2008 10:57 AM
If everything were happening right now, then the universe would be winking, and the Big Bang would also be happening right now. It appears that those events are not happening at this moment, so there must be some differentiation between them. Can you explain the apparent non-simultaneity of events without admitting that time seems to exist?
Lote-Tree - 01-31-2008 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by PeterL

Can you explain the apparent non-simultaneity of events without admitting that time seems to exist?

Time is measured from the movement of particles? At the quantum field level there are no particles hence no time?
PeterL - 01-31-2008 03:03 PM
Whether one calls them waves or particles, the net effect is the same. Things move, and the distance they move divided by the velocity at which they move equals the time that it took for them to move. Quantum Theory doesn't say that matter does not exist, nor does it claim that time does not exist. Some of the characteristics of matter are wavelike and some are particle-like.
Time is as important in Quantum Physics as it is in classical physics.

BTW, what do you think is the nature of time?
Lote-Tree - 02-01-2008 05:37 AM
Whether one calls them waves or particles, the net effect is the same.

When everything is the same. There is no reference point. At the quantum filed level everything is same and hence no time? There is only time-less energy?

BTW, what do you think is the nature of time?

I don't know really to be honest. Real Time - the "time" we live our lives by may be just an invention. In deep meditation time does not seem to exist. Imaginary Time sounds interesting though
PeterL - 02-01-2008 10:47 AM
"When everything is the same. There is no reference point. At the quantum filed level everything is same and hence no time? There is only time-less energy?"

Everything is not the same. Perhaps at some point there was a uniform field of energy, but that isn't the situation now. Quantum Theory describes things quite nicely on the subatomic scale, but it does not describe things on the macroscopic scale. On the macroscopic scale there is a clear difference between matter and energy. On the macroscopic scale events are not symmetrical with respect to time, while they are on the subatomic scale.

Even on the subatomic scale there is time, because there is a differentiation between events.

One of the peculiarities of time is that on the cosmic scale is that time is an imaginary number in many calculations. We also don't know the direction of the arrow of time over cosmic distances. There is a distinct possibility that time is circular over 100 billion years (it might even branch), but we can't see that. We can only see the direction of time on our own scale. We infer the direction of time on the subatomic scale, but we can't see that directly.
kiz_paws - 02-01-2008 12:26 PM
Lote, have you thought of posting a thread in this regard? The conversation that you and PeterL are having is most interesting, and maybe more folks would jump in (as not everyone comes to the blogs...). Just an idear! (spelled wrong on purpose)
Lote-Tree - 02-03-2008 01:38 PM
Originally Posted by PeterL

Perhaps at some point there was a uniform field of energy, but that isn't the situation now.

Yes, and in that Uniform Field of Energy there is no time. But that Uniformity still exists at the fundamental level. The "Separation" and "disconnectedness" we see around us is therefore, as Buddhist and Mystics would say is an "Illusion".

Quantum Theory describes things quite nicely on the subatomic scale, but it does not describe things on the macroscopic scale. On the macroscopic scale there is a clear difference between matter and energy. On the macroscopic scale events are not symmetrical with respect to time, while they are on the subatomic scale. Even on the subatomic scale there is time, because there is a differentiation between events. One of the peculiarities of time is that on the cosmic scale is that time is an imaginary number in many calculations. We also don't know the direction of the arrow of time over cosmic distances. There is a distinct possibility that time is circular over 100 billion years (it might even branch), but we can't see that. We can only see the direction of time on our own scale. We infer the direction of time on the subatomic scale, but we can't see that directly.
Lote-Tree - 02-03-2008 01:48 PM
Originally Posted by Kiz_paws

Lote, have you thought of posting a thread in this regard? The conversation that you and PeterL are having is most interesting, and maybe more folks would jump in (as not everyone comes to the blogs...). Just an idear! (spelled wrong on purpose)

I didn't think many litnetters would be interested in such things May Kiz you should start the thread
PeterL - 02-04-2008 11:26 AM
Yes, and in that Uniform Field of Energy there is no time. But that Uniformity still exists at the fundamental level. The "Separation" and "disconnectedness" we see around us is therefore, as Buddhist and Mystics would say is an "Illusion".

I don't completely disagree with you for two reasons: One the Planck distance scale there is a fairly uniform energy field, and that underlies all detectable matter and energy. The "illusion" that mystics speak of has been described as holographic. That is, that matter can be thought of as a projection with the background energy serving a the movie screen. I can't prove such a thing, but I think that the mystics are right, but at the same time there is change, even at that level. If you were to look at the physical universe as it is now, and compare that to the way that it was 15 billion years ago, they would look different. A corollary to that is the concept that additional time-spaces exist, and they may not be parallel with this one. Thus, it is conceivable that one could leave this T-S, enter another, move a mile in one direction, return to this TS, and find oneself 100 years in the future (or in the past, or in the opposite direction from the way one was going, etc.).

Time is not the illusory thing, but space, matter, and energy may be illusory.
Lote-Tree - 02-05-2008 08:24 AM
Originally Posted by PeterL

I don't completely disagree with you for two reasons: One the Planck distance scale there is a fairly uniform energy field, and that underlies all detectable matter and energy. The "illusion" that mystics speak of has been described as holographic.

Yes. Holographic Principle seems to agree with the Mystical Experience. I think the Internet also operates in a kind of Holographic Principle where everything is complexly interconnected with each other. Holographic Principle also seems to resolve Einesteins "spooky actions" at a distance.
PeterL - 02-05-2008 02:57 PM
Yes. Holographic Principle seems to agree with the Mystical Experience. I think the Internet also operates in a kind of Holographic Principle where everything is complexly interconnected with each other. Holographic Principle also seems to resolve Einesteins "spooky actions" at a distance. That is, that matter can be thought of as a projection with the background energy serving a the movie screen. I can't prove such a thing, but I think that the mystics are right, but at the same time there is change, even at that level.

In my experience the mystics are right, and the physicists are getting to the point of agreeing with them. Einstein wrote of "spooky actions", because he didn't really get it.

Time is not the illusory thing, but space, matter, and energy may be illusory.

I don't think that 'illusory' is the right term. It might be more accurate to say that they are deceptive, paradoxical, or misunderstood. Space, matter, and energy exist from whatever point of view one takes, but they imporatnce of each is different from different points of view. Maybe slippery would be a better term, because the better a grasp one gets on them, the more likely it is for the concept to slip away and appear to be something else.
Lote-Tree - 02-06-2008 06:50 AM
Originally Posted by PeterL

In my experience the mystics are right, and the physicists are getting to the point of agreeing with them.

Then we would have to redefine OBJECTIVE reality ;-( but OMNIJECTIVE sounds fantastic though
PeterL - 02-06-2008 12:15 PM
Then we would have to redefine OBJECTIVE reality ;-( but OMNIJECTIVE sounds fantastic though

I would rather simply eliminate the concept of objectivity. Every thought that any person has is influenced by personal opinion. Quantum physics is all about 'frame of reference', which is another term for 'point of view'.