Major Breakthrough: We Now Know Why the Space Time Fabric is Stretching Out?

Ortiz and colleagues in their recent paper have given a physical explanation to the accelerated expansion of the Universe.

The Einstein Field Equations (EFE), describe the fundamental interactions of gravitation as a result of space-time being curved by means of the mass and energy inside this space-time. In this sense the metric and the stress-energy tensor determine the system, and the dynamics of it can be obtained via the variation principle of the Einstein Hilbert (EH) action plus the matter action field.

In 1917, Einstein realized that the dynamics of his new theory predicted a non permanent universe, simply because all the matter attracts gravitationally. Consequently, influenced by the belief, at the time, that the Universe was static and everlasting, he decided to modify his theory, including a constant parameter, called the Cosmological Constant (CC). Short after, in 1922, Alexander Friedmann, sets bases for the theoretical model for an expanding Universe. The accelerated expansion of the Universe was confirmed with observational evidence by George Lamaître in 1927, and by Edwin Hubble, in 1929; establishing the correlation between the redshift and the distance from its sources.

To the moment, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM) cosmological model is the best candidate to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The power spectrum of the flat ΛCDM model is the one that best fits the cosmological observations, like Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB), Baryonic Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and large scale structure formations, among others. Most of the parameters of the model are well understood, except the CC, the one parameter that rules the accelerated evolution of the Universe.

There is a strong disagreement between the predicted dark energy density and the observed one, which is of the order of magnitude of the current matter energy density. This problem is known as the Cosmological Constant Problem.

Under the standard cosmological model ΛCDM, recent measurements of the expansion rate of the Universe, at low redshifts, appear to be in disagreement with the predictions for observations of the CMB, this disagreement is known as the Hubble’s Tension.

Even more so, the fact that the ratio of the baryonic energy density to dark energy density at present time is of the order of one in the ΛCDM model, makes Ortiz and colleagues look up for a physical explanation for such a remarkable coincidence, the “Cosmological Coincidence Problem” in their recent paper.

Scientists have been proposing many alternative models and theories, in order to explain the expansion phenomenon, the Coincidence Problem and Hubble’s Tension. Basically, such explanations can be sorted into two different kinds: one is that the problem depends on the matter content, i.e. the stress-energy tensor, Tµν, and that there must be some extra energy fluid that may fill the space-time, e.g., quintessence; another possibility states that the problem rests on the geometric sector, implying that Einstein’s theory could be wrong or incomplete e.g., Modified Gravity.

In order to address these problems, now Ortiz and colleagues in their paper consider the surface forces of a homogeneous and isotropic cosmological system. Taking into account the surface energy of the analyzed system, a new relativistic effect, never considered before, is derived, modifying the system of equations that governs the evolution of the expansion of the Universe.

“We showed that the inclusion of a surface tension term can explain why the space-time fabric is stretching out, and leads to modify the usual Friedmann equations.”, said Ortiz.

They proposed ST model. The strength of their model resides in its simplicity. Due to the way the model was developed, it preserves all the desirable futures of the ΛCDM model, with one less parameter to be fixed. It also possesses desirable futures of the phantom w = – 4/3 cosmological model, without violating the null energy condition.

Figure 1: Evolution of the deceleration parameter in terms of the redshift for the ΛCDM model and the proposed model. © Ortiz et al.

Their model ensures homogeneity and isotropy over the whole space-time – it explains: a) the Cosmological Coincidence Problem, b) why there is no need for such a cosmological constant to explain the acceleration of the Universe, and c) why we have not found any particle or fluid responsible for the dark energy component. Wanna have a closer look? So, let’s start with the hypothesis.

Yeah, they introduced one hypothesis based on the surface tension, γS, and its implications in the dynamics of a perfect fluid density. Surface tension, as you know, it is associated with the nature of the chemical bonds of atoms (electromagnetic force) at the surface of an interface between different materials; nevertheless, the surface tension is related to the Euler–Cauchy stress principle which is a basic concept of continuum mechanics. If you don’t know about this principle, let me tell you, this principle states that upon any close surface (real or imaginary) that divides a body, the action of one part of the body on the other is equivalent to its external forces acting on it. For bodies in continuous media, there are two types of external forces:

• Body forces, (f).
• Surface forces or stress. (F).

Thus, the total force ‘F’ applied to a body or to a portion of the body is the contribution of all the forces. The interactions between pairs of atoms or molecules, are usually modeled with the Lennard-Jones potential. This is a good approximation for short interaction distances, since it is related to the Pauli exclusion principle and the Van der Waals force due to intermolecular forces. The gravitational potential, being several orders of magnitude less than the electromagnetic potential, is neglected.

“We know that the gravitational potential is the one that acts at large distances,
so we worked under the hypothesis that surface tension due to this potential is relevant at large scales.”, said Ortiz.

They applied the Euler-Cauchy stress principle to the thermodynamic equation, and arrived to a density evolution equation:

The resulting density equation takes into account the matter content inside the system and the surface tension of the given system. It is worth noting that the initial density ρ0 in above equation is the same for both RHS terms, since it is a homogeneous system.

So as to consider some extra different density fluids that do not interact among them, the superposition principle is valid, so the resulting density equation would be a linear combination of the different fluids densities. Based on the Euler-Cauchy stress principle, the above density equation is true for any spherical surface chosen in the cosmological domain.

After that, they stated, the equation of the dynamics of the Universe, by taking into account both effects: the gravitational one, due to the inner region, plus a general relativistic effect due to the surface tension. They actually obtained resulting acceleration equation from modified Friedmann equation. I mentioned both equations below just have a look:

Modified Friedmann equation. Where, the LHS of the equation provides the kinetic information; the first and second RHS equations give the information of the different fluids, dust and radiation; while the last term relates to the surface tension.
Resulting acceleration equation. where the first two terms on the RHS of both equations gather all the different fluids inside the inner region, including possibly, the dark matter; while the last term on both equations, gather all the different kinds of matter in the boundary region

So, what they actually note here is that the positive sign on the last term of the acceleration equation, is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe; this acceleration is due to the surface energy of the considered system. Yeah, what you heard is right.. They also note that this term is time dependent.

Under these circumstances, the surface energy acts much like the cosmological constant. This term gives the information on how the surface tension stretches out the space-time fabric, which explains why there is no such a dark energy fluid or particle.

These equations resemble the Friedmann Equations of a ΛCDM model, with the advantage of one less parameter to be fixed in the model, since ρ0 is obtained by the system conditions.

Their model satisfies the Dominant Energy Condition (DEC) ρ ± P ≥ 0, since ρ > 0 which was seen by us on density evolution equation, and yes, they only considered dust and radiation matter content. Under this hypothesis, the accelerated expansion of the Universe is the result of the surface tension, rather than the consequence of a negative pressure.

Have I missed something?? Yeah, right, explanation they had given on ‘cosmological Coincidence problem’.

Well friends, the information that our Universe is at an accelerated expansion epoch, comes from the observation of the redshifts of the frequency of light emitted by distant sources. In order to contrast proposed model with the cosmological observations, Ortiz and colleagues rewrite the Friedmann Equations (i.e. Modified Friedmann and resulting acceleration) in terms of the redshift parameter and found one critical density relation:

They note that the first term on the RHS of the critical density relation, is the matter energy density term, Ω0m, and that this term is of the same order of magnitude as the third term, the energy density of the surface tension, Ω0mπ, which is responsible of the accelerated expansion of the Universe. The nature of this last term gives an explanation to the Cosmological Coincidence Problem.

“Under our stated hypothesis, that the surface tension is responsible for the accelerated expansion of the Universe, we can conclude that there is no such Hubble’s tension; the problem is not in the measurements data technique, but in the employed cosmological model.”, said Ortiz.

They concluded that the proposed model is in excellent agreement with the observations. The model could be further developed to include additional degrees of freedom, which could be done by adding extra fluids or considering a non flat-space.

Reference: C. Ortiz et al., “Surface Tension: Accelerated Expansion, Coincidence Problem & Hubble Tension”, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 2020. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271820501151 https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218271820501151

Copyright of this article totally belongs to our author S. Aman.. One is allowed to reuse it only by giving proper credit either to him or to us..

Insta post © uncoverreality

Can’t Draw A Mental Picture? Aphantasia Causes Blind Spots in the Mind’s Eye (Neuroscience)

If you were asked to draw a picture of your grandparents’ living room from memory, could you do it? For most people, certain details are easy to visualize: “There’s a piano in the corner, a palm by the window and two seashells on the coffee table.”

Some individuals with aphantasia—a recently-characterized condition that causes a lack of visual memory—have reported that they don’t understand what it means to ‘count sheep’ before going to bed, because they cannot visualize sheep without seeing them. Credit: Tanner Yould on Unsplash

But for others, such a task would be almost impossible. These individuals have a rare condition called aphantasia, which prevents them from easily recreating images in their mind’s eye—in fact, the phrase “mind’s eye” may be meaningless to them.

“Some individuals with aphantasia have reported that they don’t understand what it means to ‘count sheep’ before going to bed,” said Wilma Bainbridge, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Chicago who recently led a study of the condition, which can be congenital or acquired through trauma. “They thought it was merely an expression, and had never realized until adulthood that other people could actually visualize sheep without seeing them.”

Bainbridge, who is an expert on the neuroscience of perception and memory, decided to experimentally quantify the differences between aphantasic individuals and those with typical imagery on a specific set of visual memory tasks. The goal was to better characterize aphantasia, which is little-studied, and tease apart differences between object and spatial memory.

For the study, published in the journal Cortex, Bainbridge and colleagues showed photographs of three rooms to dozens of individuals with both typical and limited imagery. They then asked the participants in both groups to draw the rooms, once from memory and once while looking at the photo as a reference.

The differences in the memory experiment were striking: Individuals with typical imagery usually drew the most salient objects in the room with a moderate amount of detail, like color and key design elements (a green carpet, rather than a rectangle).

Individuals with aphantasia had a harder time—they could place a few objects in the room, but their drawings were often simpler, and relied at times on written descriptions. For example, some wrote the word “window” inside an outline of a window rather than drawing the windowpanes.

While people with aphantasia lack visual imagery, they appear to have intact spatial memory, which is distinct from imagery and may be stored differently, according to Bainbridge. People who are congenitally blind, for example, can still describe the layout of a familiar room.

As such, individuals with aphantasia were able to place the objects that they did remember in the correct location within a room most of the time, just like those with typical imagery, even though they couldn’t remember many details.

In the above example, typical differences between aphantasic and control participants are clear: The aphantasic participant drew few details from memory and relied on verbal coding of the space, while the control participant drew more details. Both included details when drawing while viewing the original image. Credit: University of Chicago

And surprisingly, even though people with aphantasia remembered fewer objects overall, they also made fewer mistakes: They didn’t create any false memories of objects that hadn’t been in any of the rooms, and placed objects in the correct location—but the wrong room—only three times.

“One possible explanation could be that because aphantasics have trouble with this task, they rely on other strategies like verbal-coding of the space,” Bainbridge said. “Their verbal representations and other compensatory strategies might actually make them better at avoiding false memories.”

By contrast, people with typical imagery made fourteen mistakes overall, and regularly included objects that hadn’t been in the photographs. In one instance, a person even drew a piano into a living room that had only contained a fireplace, chairs and a couch. Bainbridge said this could be because they were drawing on their visual memories of other living rooms—something people with aphantasia couldn’t have done.

Both groups drew more objects, made no mistakes and scored equally well when they were asked to simply copy the photographs, suggesting that the difference is real and specific to memory, not artistic ability or effort.

Recognition is also not affected: People with aphantasia knew which pictures of rooms they had already seen when shown them a second time, and also recognize family and friends—though they cannot visualize their faces without seeing them.

Aphantasia has only come to light recently as a psychological phenomenon. Bainbridge said that’s due in part to famous people—including Ed Catmull, a co-founder of Pixar, and Blake Ross, a co-founder of Firefox—stepping forward and writing about their lack of experience with visual imagery, thereby calling attention to the condition.

Since aphantasia affects only a small percentage of the population, Bainbridge and her coauthors recruited participants from online forums where people with the condition have shared their experiences to ensure a large sample size of 61 aphantasic individuals and 52 controls with typical imagery. The drawings of both groups were scored objectively by almost 2,800 online volunteers.

Bainbridge said the study adds to a growing body of research that validates aphantasia as an experience and demonstrates key differences between object and spatial memory.

With co-authors Zoe Pounder and Alison Eardley at the University of Westminster and Chris Baker at the National Institute of Mental Health, she is hoping to further explore aphantasia as it is manifested in the brain, by using MRI scanning to elucidate some of the mechanisms behind imagery in typical and aphantasic individuals.

Reference: Wilma A. Bainbridge, Zo Pounder, Alison F. Eardley, Chris I. Baker, “Quantifying aphantasia through drawing: Those without visual imagery show deficits in object but not spatial memory”, Cortex, 2020, ISSN 0010-9452,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.11.014.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945220304317

Provided by University of Chicago

5 Reasons Why It’s Important to Let Go of the Past (Psychology)

Abigail Brenner told how letting go allows you to experience your life fully.

Letting go seems to be a hard thing to do for many. And it’s puzzling why that should be. We all move through numerous experiences in the course of living. Each stage of our life brings new challenges and opportunities to master specific tasks, to gain new skills, to explore new facets of ourselves, and to learn about who we are in relation to others and to the world we live in. Often, there is pride in our achievements and in the way we accomplish our goals. In that case, letting go and moving on feels good. When we feel content with how our life is unfolding, it’s easier to let go and be open to whatever turns up next for us.

But there are times in our lives that are particularly challenging and stressful; times that cause us worry, fear, and anxiety. Sometimes we simply don’t know where we’re going and how we’re going to get there. Sometimes we get stuck in a place, and no matter how we try, we can’t seem to find our way out. Believe it or not, that’s often part of life. It happens to most of us and, it’s okay. There’s no shame in feeling lost and uncertain of the future. Hopefully, somewhere down the line, our issues and problems will find resolution and we’ll finally be able to move on.

But what happens when you get stuck, and stay stuck? You just simply can’t get beyond and remain in a state of ruminating and obsessing about the past—about what was, about what couldn’t happen, about the opportunity that slipped away, about the person you love who doesn’t love you in the same way, about that difficult relationship that continues to challenge your integrity and health. All of the things you believed would make you happy, all of the things you expected, all of the hopes and dreams you wished for and didn’t happen— You just can’t let go! You remain stuck in the emotions of that time, replaying over and over again the hurt, the guilt, the shame, the sense of loss, and on and on.

I know it’s hard to let go of all you’re deeply invested in and stubbornly attached to, but let go you must because as painful as it may seem, it is the path to growth.

So, here are 5 points to help you begin to move forward and hopefully, to let go of what no longer serves you.

The past is done. No amount of thinking about it, energy spent on, emotions invested in it will change that fact. You can’t change what happened but you can change your reaction to it. Instead of thinking negatively about the past—your disappointment, your sadness, your struggle to have something that is not meant to be yours—you can reframe your thoughts and feelings more positively to reflect lessons learned and wisdom gained. You can allow yourself to understand that you are a continuous work in progress and that what has happened to you reflects where you are developmentally. As you grow as a person you learn to see these past events as stepping stones toward your future.

Self-limiting beliefs prevent you from letting go. When you believe that what you’re experiencing is the only choice you have and the only time you’ll have it, you limit your potential to expand and grow. When you limit your belief about your capabilities you deprive yourself of so many opportunities. When you think narrowly you drive away chances to try something new, and to succeed. You deprive yourself of being the “master” of your own creative abilities. You deprive yourself of helping to manifest what you most want to happen.

When you let go you create space for something new to happen. It’s like having a closet of junk, things you no longer use or need. Do you even know what’s in there? It’s essential to stop and take stock of what you really need emotionally, psychologically, physically, and spiritually. Do the things that once made sense in the way you lived your life still make sense? Are you hanging on out of nostalgia for the past? Are you afraid if you let go you’ll forget? When you clear away the debris of the past you create a vast space for anything to happen.

Your past is not your identity. Yes, it’s part of your history, a part of who you are but it’s not you. Your experiences reflect pieces of yourself. Things happen, but the way they happen, their unique way of presenting themselves, is colored by each person individually. You place your own imprint on the way events occur. Your identity is as much a part of your tomorrows as is your past. When you stay mired in the past you prevent yourself from living in the present and living into your tomorrow.

Letting go is the cornerstone of change. The points above all allude to this but it’s essential to clearly say this. Some people live their life by just going through the motions. They look like they’re actively participating in life, but they’re not. They’re thinking, feeling, hoping, and dreaming about a life that once was, about a life that should have happened but didn’t. A terrible waste of time. You will never know your own strength, your own courage, your own potential to live life fully. When you refuse to let go you are succumbing to fear of the unknown and fear of possible failure. When you won’t let go you prevent yourself from experiencing life in an expansive and abundant way.

As a new year approaches, it might be a good time to take stock of what is not finished in your life. Maybe you need to complete something that was never resolved. Maybe you need to make peace with part of your past that is over and done. Maybe you need to promise yourself to commit to open yourself to the new and the yet unknown.

For those of you inclined, ritual is often a wonderful way to let go of the past. Ritual is a symbolic action that allows you to imagine letting go of what no longer serves you and to take action to help you break the ties that bind you to the past, and move on.

This article is originally written by Abigail Brenner, who is a psychiatrist in private practice and an author. This article is republished here from psychology today under common creative licenses

How Aspiring to Help Others Keeps Us Happy and Healthy (Psychology)

Aspiring for community relationships based on giving back promotes well-being.

God’s wisdom teaches me: When I help others, I’m really helping myself. And if we all could spread a little sunshine, all could lend a helping hand. We’d all be a little closer to the promised land.” —”Spread a Little Sunshine” sung by Fastrada in Pippin (music & lyrics by Stephen Schwartz)

What’s your gut reaction to Fastrada professing that “when I help others, I’m really helping myself” in this Pippin song? Does aspiring to help others within your community seem unethical or cunning if your primary motivation for lending a hand is ultimately to help yourself?

As a kid growing up in the 1970s, my family went to see Pippin on Broadway; we also had an 8-track of the original cast recording in the car and listened to this soundtrack nonstop. At the time, as someone who went to church on Sundays and aspired to be a genuine “do-gooder,” hearing Fastrada sing about ‘helping others to help herself’ seemed kind of selfish and didn’t align with my moral compass.

But over the years, singing along to “Spread a Little Sunshine” prompted the realization that altruistic behaviors aren’t always selfless.

Inevitably, our willingness to help others is going to be motivated by varying degrees of self-interest. And I realize now that embracing the “give-to-get” aspects of altruism doesn’t negate the prosocial, win-win benefits of helping others. (See “The Evolutionary Biology of Altruism.”)

Nonetheless, I’ve never felt 100% comfortable admitting that my altruistic motivations are often driven by the warm glow and positive feelings I get from giving to others. So-called “random acts of kindness”—like putting twenty bucks in the tip cup after I get a to-go order from my favorite, family-owned burrito place—are often token gestures that make the giver and receiver both feel good.

Anecdotally, based on life experience, I know that helping others in my community is usually self-serving to a degree. And that’s OK. For example, my habit of leaving big tips at local restaurants isn’t purely motivated by a desire to help the community-based front line workers on the receiving end; tipping people in the service industry generously makes me feel better on multiple levels.

Now, after reading about a new study (Bradshaw et al., 2020) published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that investigated how “the social breadth of aspiration profiles predicts well-being,” I’m planning to give back more substantially in 2021. Maybe learning more about this study will inspire you to do the same.

The latest study by first author Emma Bradshaw of Australian Catholic University (ACU) and colleagues at the University of Rochester found that of three different personality profiles, those who aspired for community relationships more than interpersonal relationships “reliably experienced the highest well-being.” These are the three profiles the researchers identified and studied:

  • Disengaged from relationships and health (Profile 1)
  • Aspiring for interpersonal relationships more than community relationships (Profile 2)
  • Aspiring for community relationships more than interpersonal relationships (Profile 3)

“If you want to make a New Year’s resolution that really makes you happy, think about the ways in which you can contribute to the world,” senior author Richard Ryan, professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Rochester and the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at ACU said in a news release. “The research shows it’s not just good for the world but also really good for you.”

According to Ryan, the act of willingly helping others satisfies the three core tenets of his self-determination theory (SDT) of human motivation and personality:

  1. Autonomy
  2. Competence
  3. Relatedness

Within the SDT framework, autonomy involves engaging in activities with “personal value” that evoke a feeling of “true volition.” Competence involves “feeling effective and having a sense of accomplishment.” Relatedness means working together with others and feeling a sense of connectedness.

“Think of how you can help,” Ryan suggests. “There’s a lot of distress out there: If we can set goals that aim to help others, those kinds of goals will, in turn, also add to our own well-being.”

“Belisarius Begging for Alms” Musée du Louvre, public domain (Atlas database: entry 18877)

References: Emma L. Bradshaw, Baljinder K. Sahdra, Joseph Ciarrochi, Philip D. Parker, Tamás Martos, Richard M. Ryan. “A Configural Approach To Aspirations: The Social Breadth of Aspiration Profiles Predicts Well-Being Over and Above the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aspirations That Comprise the Profiles.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (First published online: December 03, 2020) DOI: 10.1037/pspp0000374

This article is originally written by Christopher Bergland, who is a world-class endurance athlete, coach, author, and political activist. This article is republished here from psychology today under common creative licenses

Should You Worry When Your Partner “Needs Some Space?” (Psychology)

Wendy Patrick shed some light on personal and relational reasons for taking a break.

“I just need some space.” Hearing these words from a partner can create anxiety, fear, and a sense of dread. But according to research, it shouldn’t. Far from signaling doom and gloom, seeking solitude, at least in short periods of time, can actually help, not harm, your relationship.

The Sanctity of Solitude

Jerry M. Burger, in a piece entitled “Individual Differences in Preference for Solitude,” notes that for some people, being alone is a desirable, pleasant experience, which does not make them lonely, and may actually be beneficial through stimulating self-reflection.[i] Many of us can relate to this, either personally or with respect to others in our family or social circle, who genuinely enjoy their own company. Being alone, they do not experience solitary confinement, but comfort. They may, in fact, crave this special time to relax and recharge, after which time they are more receptive and responsive—to you.

Solitude can also be calming and helpful to regulate emotions. Thuy-vy T. Nguyen et al. (2018) examined ways in which solitude impacts affective self-regulation.[ii] The scientists began by acknowledging that some prior research demonstrates that solitude can produce positive experiences when people use it for relaxation, privacy, creative pursuits, self-reflection, and regulation of emotions.

In their own research, they found that solitude generally deactivates affective experiences, reducing the effects of both positive and negative high-arousal. They found these effects only occurred when people were alone, not with others, and found this effect was present whether or not someone was engaging in activity while alone, such as reading. Perhaps most relevant to relational dynamics, they discovered that solitude can produce relaxation and reduce stress when people actively chose to spend time alone—which could explain the request for “space.”

Home Alone: Accommodating Aloneliness

Another reason to accommodate (reasonable) requests for time alone is that researchers have determined that some people not only crave time alone, but feel anxious when they do not get enough.

Robert J. Coplan et al. in a piece entitled “Seeking More Solitude” (2019), introduced the concept of aloneliness, described as negative feelings associated with a perception that a person is not spending sufficient time alone.[iii] Exploring its role emotionally, Coplan et al. found that an affinity for aloneness (distinguished from shyness) was associated with well-being. Specifically, they found that aloneliness mediated the negative link between preferring solitude and well-being, and the positive link between time alone and depression.

Coplan et al. found preliminary support for their conceptualization of aloneliness as a “mirror image of loneliness” in that where loneliness can be viewed as social dissatisfaction, aloneliness can be viewed as asocial dissatisfaction. Accordingly, they found support for their assertion that aloneliness does not depend on the actual or ideal amount of alone time, but the “mismatch between these values.”

As a practical matter, Coplan et al. note that when someone feels particularly busy or stressed, this might interfere with the ability to achieve a desired amount of solitude. This would be especially true for people who enjoy and even prefer spending time alone. The inability to achieve time alone could in turn enhance feelings of aloneliness, which could lead to negative emotions and further stress—which we can imagine is not beneficial for relationship quality or satisfaction.

Temporarily Alone Means Better Together

Obviously, too much separation can cause couples to drift apart, as out-of-sight might begin to mean out-of-mind. In the short term, however, absence can make the heart grow fonder. And apparently, for many people, privacy promotes personal wellness. So especially when someone seems to be overwhelmed or under stress, remember that an expressed need for space may reflect a desire to rest and recharge. Quality time alone can produce quality time with you.

References: [i] Burger, Jerry M. 1995. “Individual Differences in Preference for Solitude.” Journal of Research in Personality 29 (1): 85–108. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1005. [ii] Nguyen, Thuy-vy T., Richard M. Ryan, and Edward L. Deci. “Solitude as an Approach to Affective Self-Regulation.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 44, no. 1 (January 2018): 92–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217733073 [iii] Coplan, Robert J., Will E. Hipson, Kristen A. Archbell, Laura L. Ooi, Danielle Baldwin, and Julie C. Bowker. 2019. “Seeking More Solitude: Conceptualization, Assessment, and Implications of Aloneliness.” Personality and Individual Differences 148 (October): 17–26. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.05.020.

This article is originally written by Wendy L. Patrick and is republished here from psychology today under common creative licenses