Speed of Time

[Larniavc]

i) Show me the test which demonstrates that the concept of 'time itself', is a 'thing' which exists independently from human minds .. because it appears that's exactly how you perceive it .. (which we can all see is nonsensical);

ii) the time dimension of spacetime is arbitrary (ie: is model dependent).

Silly goose; time is the same speed as length.

 

[SelfSim]

.. time is the same speed as length.

Best of luck in trying to convince anyone of the usefulness of that particular concept.

 

[Landon Caeli]

A new study published in Science Advances shows that prolonged heat exposure of that magnitude can even modify how people's genes behave, speeding up aging at the molecular level and potentially impacting people's long-term health.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5325273/heat-accelerates-aging-new-study-finds

...Heat speeds time. Since time is relative to human perception.

 

[SelfSim]

A new study published in Science Advances shows that prolonged heat exposure of that magnitude can even modify how people's genes behave, speeding up aging at the molecular level and potentially impacting people's long-term health.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/17/nx-s1-5325273/heat-accelerates-aging-new-study-finds

...Heat speeds time. Since time is relative to human perception.

And yet, 'DNA methylation patterns changing over time', doesn't change the time those pattern changes are measured over.
If it did, then 'acceleration of epigenetic aging' wouldn't be the conclusion from these test results .. more likely nothing could be concluded from those results.
An observer needs a constant time reference to make sense of their perceptions. Constants don't speed up or slow down.

Abstractions, (such as time), matter in determining what exists.
How we determine what it is to exist .. ie: how things that do exist, (the 'material') and how some things can be caused to exist (time), while others cannot ... is life.

 

[BeyondET]

How so?

One cesium atom that has moved away then back at relativistic speeds will have oscillated fewer times than one that stayed here.

The oscillation happens in the atom.

 

[Shemjaza]

The oscillation happens in the atom.

Yes, but not syncretised with other cesium atoms, so it isn't a universal measure of time. It's an objective measure of time passing, but only within its own frame of reference.

 

[SelfSim]

The oscillation happens in the atom.

Yes, but not syncretised with other cesium atoms, so it isn't a universal measure of time. It's an objective measure of time passing, but only within its own frame of reference.

Hmm .. fascinating.
Methinks different concepts of 'what time might be', is what's lurking at the basis of these two perspectives(?)
Newtonian Mechanics (and somewhat, Quantum Mechanics) has this idea of 'clock time' as being external to the systems under study and that's what keeps track of time.
Thermodynamics has time as an arrow.
SR has this notion of simultaneity built in and I think that's mostly what SR is about. Simultaneity is related to time.

The thing to notice here, is that new physics theories have each invented new concepts of time.

PS: .. and so why not do that? After all, time is our (human) concept .. so why not change it to better describe new physics?

 

[Shemjaza]

Hmm .. fascinating.
Methinks different concepts of 'what time might be', is what's lurking at the basis of these two perspectives(?)
Newtonian Mechanics (and somewhat, Quantum Mechanics) has this idea of 'clock time' as being external to the systems under study and that's what keeps track of time.
Thermodynamics has time as an arrow.
SR has this notion of simultaneity built in and I think that's mostly what SR is about. Simultaneity is related to time.

The thing to notice here, is that new physics theories have each invented new concepts of time.

PS: .. and so why not do that? After all, time is our (human) concept .. so why not change it to better describe new physics?

I think mainly because the normal human concept of time has vastly more utility than something that could directly represent the more esoteric conclusions from evidence about reality.

 

[SelfSim]

I think mainly because the normal human concept of time has vastly more utility than something that could directly represent the more esoteric conclusions from evidence about reality.

Hmm .. I think the reality you might mean there, is the physics models, or theories humans have developed, (ie: Newtonian & Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, SR, GR, etc). We need a concept of time included in them, in order to make sense of what we observe, or perceive.
We don't know what those models/theories 'refer to', (or 'represent'), because that never actually gets tested .. only the models get tested.

I'm in thinking mode at the moment, about yet another proposed concept of 'causal time', which plays a big role in a new testable theory of life currently under development. I guess we can add that to the list of time concepts, (ie: external clock time, the arrow of time, simultaneity and now, causal time). Time is a pliable concept, but what's obvious, is that it never completely disappears for us .. we can't do without it .. which is why I say time is vital part in the operating system of our human minds .. and not something existing independently from it. The different concepts of it, and its pliability across diverse physics models/theories, are the evidence of its mind dependence.

There is no evidence for its mind independence.

(FWIW IMO: .. so, there is therefore little utility value I can see, in debating multiple instances of 'oscillations in an atom' across the universe vs 'simultaneity of events viewable from different observer frames across the universe .. independently from the mind perceiving time in both of those respective theories there).

 

[Shemjaza]

Hmm .. I think the reality you might mean there, is the physics models, or theories humans have developed, (ie: Newtonian & Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics, SR, GR, etc). We need a concept of time included in them, in order to make sense of what we observe, or perceive.
We don't know what those models/theories 'refer to', (or 'represent'), because that never actually gets tested .. only the models get tested.

Examining models is as close as we directly get to examining reality... we don't have the advantage of pure solvable equations like in pure maths, and representative approximations and inferred patterns and models.

I'm in thinking mode at the moment, about yet another proposed concept of 'causal time', which plays a big role in a new testable theory of life currently under development. I guess we can add that to the list of time concepts, (ie: external clock time, the arrow of time, simultaneity and now, causal time). Time is a pliable concept, but what's obvious, is that it never completely disappears for us .. we can't do without it .. which is why I say time is vital part in the operating system of our human minds .. and not something existing independently from it. The different concepts of it, and its pliability across diverse physics models/theories, are the evidence of its mind dependence.

Can you explain Causal Time? I've had a brief google, but I can't isolate what you mean.

There is no evidence for its mind independence.

(FWIW IMO: .. so, there is therefore little utility value I can see, in debating multiple instances of 'oscillations in an atom' across the universe vs 'simultaneity of events viewable from different observer frames across the universe .. independently from the mind perceiving time in both of those respective theories there).

If relativistic effects were obvious on a trivially human perceived scale then we would absolutely have concepts and language to describe it... but it's so alien to our everyday experience that some slightly weirdly formed sentences aren't a significant problem.

However if we were able to represent some kind of universal simultaneous timing effect, it would be very important as it would probably overthrow a lot of what we know about physics.

 

[SelfSim]

Examining models is as close as we directly get to examining reality... we don't have the advantage of pure solvable equations like in pure maths, and representative approximations and inferred patterns and models.

Sure .. that's why the models are tested.
However, there's no objective explanatory power in having them 'represent a something', although one can believe that, if one so chooses.

Can you explain Causal Time? I've had a brief google, but I can't isolate what you mean.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept, so I'm nowhere near enough to be able to comprehensively explain it in my own words at the moment .. its pretty abstract. I'm not sure I even like it, but here's AI's explanation, (which satisfies my current understanding well enough):

'In Assembly Theory, "causal time" refers to the time required to assemble objects, where the object's formation history and the memory of the assembly process are crucial for understanding their properties and the emergence of complex structures.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Objects as Assembly Products:
  Assembly Theory views objects not as fundamental entities but as products of an assembly process, where simpler objects are combined to form more complex ones.
• Time as a Physical Property:
  In this framework, time is not just a background dimension but a physical property of the assembly process itself, meaning the time it takes to assemble an object is a key factor in its characteristics.
• Causality and Memory:
  The assembly process is not arbitrary; it's constrained by the objects available and the rules of their interaction. The memory of the assembly process, including the order of steps and the objects used, becomes a physical attribute of the final object.
• Selection and Evolution:
  The theory suggests that objects with high complexity, or those that are abundant, are likely to be the result of a selective process during assembly, where certain assembly pathways are favored over others.
• Examples:
  Enzyme catalysts in biochemistry, which enable the formation of complex molecules, are cited as examples of objects whose existence and abundance are linked to their role in specific assembly processes.
• Implications:
  Assembly Theory offers a way to incorporate history and causal contingency into the physics of complex objects, potentially providing a bridge between physics and biology by explaining how complexity and novelty can emerge through assembly processes'.

The main point is that causal time, (or, history), is considered as being the key physical parameter which defines what a (complex) object is. Every object exists in 'time' as the aggregation of a series of recursive paths by which the universe can assemble it. Some are bigger than others .. with us humans being one of the biggest .. We're enormous, in fact .. we've got about 4 billion years of causal time defining us as assembled human objects. I'm about 4 billion years old .. (and so are you).

If relativistic effects were obvious on a trivially human perceived scale then we would absolutely have concepts and language to describe it... but it's so alien to our everyday experience that some slightly weirdly formed sentences aren't a significant problem.

Hmm .. Well, its counterintuitive and 'weird sentences' always end up as being a big problem for those not having the concepts firmly embedded.
Conversations about those effects invariably end up resorting to the concept of, say, simultaneity and the equations of time dilation, (for eg), as a way of explaining the counterintuitivity of the effects. (The simultaneity focus on the concept of time is invoked as the basis .. by necessity).

However if we were able to represent some kind of universal simultaneous timing effect, it would be very important as it would probably overthrow a lot of what we know about physics.

It would likely violate the constancy of c and thence the causality concept embedded within the objective reality models of relativistic physics. Its not a big problem in objective reality models of QM physics, however.

 

[Shemjaza]

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the concept, so I'm nowhere near enough to be able to comprehensively explain it in my own words at the moment .. its pretty abstract. I'm not sure I even like it, but here's AI's explanation, (which satisfies my current understanding well enough):

'In Assembly Theory, "causal time" refers to the time required to assemble objects, where the object's formation history and the memory of the assembly process are crucial for understanding their properties and the emergence of complex structures.

Here's a more detailed explanation:

• Objects as Assembly Products:
  Assembly Theory views objects not as fundamental entities but as products of an assembly process, where simpler objects are combined to form more complex ones.
• Time as a Physical Property:
  In this framework, time is not just a background dimension but a physical property of the assembly process itself, meaning the time it takes to assemble an object is a key factor in its characteristics.
• Causality and Memory:
  The assembly process is not arbitrary; it's constrained by the objects available and the rules of their interaction. The memory of the assembly process, including the order of steps and the objects used, becomes a physical attribute of the final object.
• Selection and Evolution:
  The theory suggests that objects with high complexity, or those that are abundant, are likely to be the result of a selective process during assembly, where certain assembly pathways are favored over others.
• Examples:
  Enzyme catalysts in biochemistry, which enable the formation of complex molecules, are cited as examples of objects whose existence and abundance are linked to their role in specific assembly processes.
• Implications:
  Assembly Theory offers a way to incorporate history and causal contingency into the physics of complex objects, potentially providing a bridge between physics and biology by explaining how complexity and novelty can emerge through assembly processes'.

The main point is that causal time, (or, history), is considered as being the key physical parameter which defines what a (complex) object is. Every object exists in 'time' as the aggregation of a series of recursive paths by which the universe can assemble it. Some are bigger than others .. with us humans being one of the biggest .. We're enormous, in fact .. we've got about 4 billion years of causal time defining us as assembled human objects. I'm about 4 billion years old .. (and so are you).

It's an interesting way to describe things, but I can't really see how this kind of time is measurable independent of the relevant assembly of structure.

For example, would a contained 1 litre water ice crystal formed in a normal home freezer have more or the same "time" as one formed the extreme cold of the crust of an ice moon around Jupiter?

 

[SelfSim]

It's an interesting way to describe things, but I can't really see how this kind of time is measurable independent of the relevant assembly of structure.

Its not. I raised the concept of causal time in this conversation, as a demonstration of how different concepts of time are invented in certain parts of physics. (Therefore, time is evidently a mind dependent concept).

For example, would a contained 1 litre water ice crystal formed in a normal home freezer have more or the same "time" as one formed the extreme cold of the crust of an ice moon around Jupiter?

I'm not attempting to use Assembly theory's causal time to explain two separated containers of water ice crystals. That wasn't the point of my raising it, (see above for my point).

So, you said in post#42: 'Cesium atoms are within space.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure'.
That's interesting .. given the case in QM, where 'different atoms' are indistinguishable from eachother regardless of their locations, yet that observable state is considered as being just as objectively real as anything else is .. (ie: its not a subjective interpretation by an observer).

 

[Shemjaza]

Its not. I raised the concept of causal time in this conversation, as a demonstration of how different concepts of time are invented in certain parts of physics. (Therefore, time is evidently a mind dependent concept).

Aren't all concepts?

I worry that we are running into the same term being used for fundamentally different topics.

I'm not attempting to use Assembly theory's causal time to explain two separated containers of water ice crystals. That wasn't the point of my raising it, (see above for my point).

I was trying to think of an example of two things that had the same amount of construction, but took different amounts of time (as used in the convention way).

So, you said in post#42: 'Cesium atoms are within space.... and different atoms will be subject to different flows of time... removing it as an objective measure'.
That's interesting .. given the case in QM, where 'different atoms' are indistinguishable from eachother regardless of their locations, yet that observable state is considered as being just as objectively real as anything else is .. (ie: its not a subjective interpretation by an observer).

That's reasonable, but it means that the time passing in two reference frame can be said to be objectively different... so universal objective measure of time can't be measured because universal time doesn't exist.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

I wanted an accurate measurement of time. The conclusion that I have been led to has been very intriguing. So, I decided to share it.

Speed of time is infinite. You might be perplexed. How can that be. Wouldn't it result in all time just happening at once, thus reaching the end of time?

My main point that has led to me to this conclusion is the duration of time itself. Time it self cannot have a duration. Thus, mathematically, speed of time is infinite.

Time doesn't have a speed, since time is the denominator of "speed".