Re: Ken S. Tucker. Time is an imaginary axis

Thanks Sue

sue jahn wrote:
> Unless you relate it to energy/mass
>
> Complex numbers are useful abstract quantities that can be used in
calculations and result in physically meaningful solutions.
> However, recognition of this fact is one that took a long time for
mathematicians to accept. For example, John Wallis wrote, "These
> Imaginary Quantities (as they are commonly called) arising from the
Supposed Root of a Negative Square (when they happen) are
> reputed to imply that the Case proposed is Impossible" (Wells 1986,
p. 22).
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplexNumber.html
> Sue...

For something else on *imaginary numbers* check out...

http://www.marco-learningsystems.com/pages/sawyer/unbelieve.html

((Prof. Sawyer was kind enough to tutor me in the
late 60's and early 70's, he was extremely helpful,
and we did in fact discuss imaginary spacetime)).

Minkowski (in Dover's PoR pg 88) writes,
3*10^5 km = i*secs. (i=sqrt(-1)).

That looked particularily attractive to me because
I thought time was imaginary because it would depend
upon memory, which is of course imaginary.

But another solution to Minkowski SpaceTime existed
that did not require "i" or negative metrics in the
diagonal.

The latter solution permitted Length =c*Time, that
was adopted by the International Standard of Units,
which a lot of smart guys agreed to, so now I follow
the ISU's definition, there is no "i" in that.
Much of classical relativity is written in terms
of *time* being imaginary when related to *space*,
but I find some problems with that too, Alex Green
in his post quotes Kip Thorne as having problems
with imaginary time in GR.

Using *imaginary time* as a introduction to GR is
fine because it might simplify things, and might
after-all be right! But another system does exist.

Regards
Ken S. Tucker

.

Quantcast