Time: The Imaginary Number

[antiaging]

In several scientific disciplines that involve mathematics an imaginary number is used in the calculations to make the numbers come out right. That should mean that there really is something acting on the physical world that is represented by that imaginary number, since it makes the math come out correctly in real world calculations.

An example of this is voltage = current x impedance

The number used for impedance is a complex number composed of a real number plus an imaginary number.

V=I*(R+J) voltage =current times impedance J is an imaginary number to make the math come out right.

Current is plotted horizontally on a graph and an imaginary vertical axis is used for j; a2 +b2 = c2 pythagorean theorem is used to calculate a value for the current. Showing that the imaginary number represents another dimension acting on the current. This imaginary axis, for the imaginary number, on the graph, is at a right angle to the real axis for the current. So the imaginary number is acting, mathematically, as another dimension.

Einstein's general relativity theory, to explain gravity, (which has been proven experimentally correct) uses time as a 4th dimension. In the real world the 3 dimensions, length, width, and depth are each one at a right angle to the other two dimensions. Time, being a 4th dimension, should be at a right angle to the 3 physical dimensions, to qualify as a 4th dimension. The imaginary number, used in calculating current and other things, has an imaginary axis on a graph that is at a right angle to the real axis, and it is therfore acting as a 4th dimension. Since the only proven 4th dimension is time:

I recommend that time should be substituted for the imaginary number in all calculations, in scientific disciplines, that use an imaginary number to make the math come out correctly.

This could lead to all sorts of new equations in all of these fields, and show how time itself is entering into the function of the real world in these scientific disciplines.

 

 

copyrighted/plagiarized material removed

 

Investigating the equation v = i x (r + j)

v = voltage or potential difference (charge difference); i = current, r = resistance, J = imaginary number

Well let's do the substitution and see:

v = i x (r + j) substituting t (time) for j (the imaginary number)

v = i x (r+t); substituting i for charge/time [coulombs/time]

v = charge/t x (r + t); v = charge/t x r + charge/t x t; t's cancel

v = i x r + charge. For alternating current.

 

That equation that I derived from substituting j with t makes sense after considering it.

v = i x r + charge [substitution was made for i = charge/time (or coulombs/t)

That equation makes sense for alternating current.

Current goes from max to 0 then back to max in the opposite direction and then to 0. When the current is at 0 and ready to change direction the charge (built up at both ends of the wire) is at a maximum, so the potential difference has reversed and ready to push the current back in the opposite direction. So, the value of the voltage (potential difference stays constant) throughout the cycle. As I x r increases the charge moves away from the ends of the wire, in current, and charge at ends of wire goes down while current goes up, still keeping voltage value v, constant. That equation does describe what is happening with alternating current. The substitution of j for time worked.

Also, v - (i x r) = charge is valid. When v = i x r then the charge built up at the end of the wires is 0. V = i x r in direct current, and with direct current there is never a charge built up at the end of the wire because the charge is flowing constanly in one direction through the wire.

 

This is easy to do as you see. Go to any scientific discipline that uses an imaginary number (as another dimension) to make the math come out correctly and substitute t (time) for the imaginary number and then derive your own equations. My argument for why this is a valid substitution is in the post up top.

You could be the first man to see a new mathematical relationship in nature.

Edited May 17, 2009 by swansont
remove plagiarized material

[mooeypoo]

This entire thing s copied, and violates our (and the WORLD's!) anti plagiarism policy.

 

All you had to do, is cite this from the source. A quick google search showed this one: http://www.regentsprep.org/rEGENTS/mathb/2C3/electricalresouce.htm

 

Don't forget it again.

[the tree]

V=I*(R+J)

Not sure how you arrived at that, it's pretty rare to add a dimensionless scalar in a physical equation. V=RJ according to Wikipedia, all terms being complex numbers which are a sum of both 'real' and 'imaginary' parts.