Human perception of time
Discussion
So,
I have a dripping tap in downstairs cloakroom.
Whilst I was in there yesterday and listening the the drip drip, I perceived that the drips were occuring almost a second apart. Almost...
So I counted the drips over a minute; the drips were occuring every 0.9 seconds, meaning I can differentiate a second to an accuracy of at least +/- 10%
I am now wondering how long it will be before my wife starts nagging me to fix the drip.
I have a dripping tap in downstairs cloakroom.
Whilst I was in there yesterday and listening the the drip drip, I perceived that the drips were occuring almost a second apart. Almost...
So I counted the drips over a minute; the drips were occuring every 0.9 seconds, meaning I can differentiate a second to an accuracy of at least +/- 10%
I am now wondering how long it will be before my wife starts nagging me to fix the drip.
steveT350C said:
So I counted the drips over a minute; the drips were occuring every 0.9 seconds, meaning I can differentiate a second to an accuracy of at least +/- 10%
That conclusion seems a bit of a stretch given the limited experiment. If the drips happened to be precisely a second apart you wouldn't claim to have the accuracy of an atomic clock.Monty Python said:
Time is a human construct anyway - if we hadn't decided to measure it and develop devices to measure it the world would have continued without any problems.
Time isn't a human construct!Time existed long before humans evolved. It must have done for evolution to occur.
To clarify; I was listening to the dripping and initially thought they were about a second apart. On focusing my attention to the dripping, I could tell they were slightly less than a second apart apart.
Subsequent measuring using stopwatch for a minute and counting drips showed them to be 0.9 secs apart.
I do have a life outside of my cloakroom
Subsequent measuring using stopwatch for a minute and counting drips showed them to be 0.9 secs apart.
I do have a life outside of my cloakroom
Why is it that when you (well me anyway) look at a quartz analogue clock on the wall - one with a sweep second hand - the second hand seems at first sight to be stationary for longer than the normal time interval between steps? I unfailingly think momentarily that the clock has stopped.
RegMolehusband said:
Yes but if you were to attempt to count seconds for a million years you'd be 100,000 years out. Not so accurate really . . . . 
I think I've just boggled my own mind.
ooh, I was at a really interesting talk the other day and there was something about railway tracks, if they're a mm out after 100m by x distance they'd be....I think I've just boggled my own mind.
It was mind blowing at the time, and now I've forgotten the point and the reference. Dammit.
motco said:
Why is it that when you (well me anyway) look at a quartz analogue clock on the wall - one with a sweep second hand - the second hand seems at first sight to be stationary for longer than the normal time interval between steps? I unfailingly think momentarily that the clock has stopped.
Chronostasis.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis
steveT350C said:
motco said:
Why is it that when you (well me anyway) look at a quartz analogue clock on the wall - one with a sweep second hand - the second hand seems at first sight to be stationary for longer than the normal time interval between steps? I unfailingly think momentarily that the clock has stopped.
Chronostasis.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronostasis
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff