Furthering the thrust toward explanation

[Popcorn Sutton]

Given imaginary time being a property of real space, should we ask ourselves if there may be creatures who can navigate through imaginary time? Is this a possible explanation for real time?

[swansont]

We should probably first establish what "imaginary time" actually means and how simpler things would behave under that circumstance.

[Nicholas Kang]

What do you mean by "imaginary time"?

[physica]

Given imaginary time being a property of real space, should we ask ourselves if there may be creatures who can navigate through imaginary time? Is this a possible explanation for real time?

This is a prime example of the limitations to ones philosophy if they don't understand maths and why top universities like Oxford make their philosophy students study maths. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking and not proven. It's also called imaginary because of the use of imaginary numbers. When you square an imaginary number you get -1 which is a very real number. This unproven concept is theoretically proposed to better understand the Big Bang Singularity where are one point space-time curvature becomes infinite. What Hawking proposes is that instead of thinking about singularities in ordinary time, they should be considered in terms of imaginary time. As squaring an imaginary number comes up with a negative real number a complex number has a real component and a imaginary counterpart. When time is set to zero then the imaginary part will override the real part and you will end up with negative time. meaning there is no beginning or end. This is like picking a point on a planet. You can travel an infinite distance but you will end up with a finite displacement from your first position because you will be going round in circles.

 

Engineers use imaginary numbers on a daily basis. Second year mathmatical modelling will have you using real numbers to model spring movement. Alter the length of the spring is changed and you will find yourself square rooting negative number and needing imaginary numbers do describe the spring.

Edited June 25, 2014 by physica

[Popcorn Sutton]

We should probably first establish what "imaginary time" actually means and how simpler things would behave under that circumstance.

 

What do you mean by "imaginary time"?

 

I could be wrong with this, but I'm speaking from a philosophical stand point. I think that imaginary time is a property of real space (as the wikipedia describes it). What I see from the wikipedia suggests that imaginary time is a single moment in space where everything that observably exists comes to a complete stop. If you were to navigate imaginary time, you would be navigating through a single moment.

 

 

This is a prime example of the limitations to ones philosophy if they don't understand maths and why top universities like Oxford make their philosophy students study maths. Imaginary time is proposed by Hawking and not proven. It's also called imaginary because of the use of imaginary numbers. When you square an imaginary number you get -1 which is a very real number. This unproven concept is theoretically proposed to better understand the Big Bang Singularity where are one point space-time curvature becomes infinite. What Hawking proposes is that instead of thinking about singularities in ordinary time, they should be considered in terms of imaginary time. As squaring an imaginary number comes up with a negative real number a complex number has a real component and a imaginary counterpart. When time is set to zero then the imaginary part will override the real part and you will end up with negative time. meaning there is no beginning or end. This is like picking a point on a planet. You can travel an infinite distance but you will end up with a finite displacement from your first position because you will be going round in circles.

 

Engineers use imaginary numbers on a daily basis. Second year mathmatical modelling will have you using real numbers to model spring movement. Alter the length of the spring is changed and you will find yourself square rooting negative number and needing imaginary numbers do describe the spring.

 

If you square i you get -1. From what I know through programming, sometimes when you add 1 to n as in list[n] (the location of an object on a list), you need to do n-1 to have the correct name to save a file under.

n = 0
while True:
    try:
        search_this = list[n]
        n += 1
        searchgoogle()

with open('/home/' + list[n-1] + '.txt', 'a') as myfile:
        myfile.write(str(item_location))
        myfile.close()

Edited June 25, 2014 by Popcorn Sutton

[Nicholas Kang]

I don`t see imaginary time as a mature physics topic but it is good to learn and explore more about it. Moreover, the information on wikipedia isn`t as many as the theory which it is derived from-quantum mechanics.

[physica]

I could be wrong with this, but I'm speaking from a philosophical stand point. I think that imaginary time is a property of real space (as the wikipedia describes it). What I see from the wikipedia suggests that imaginary time is a single moment in space where everything that observably exists comes to a complete stop. If you were to navigate imaginary time, you would be navigating through a single moment.

lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers.

 

Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe.

 

Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers.

 

Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths.

 

You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs. Again this is why top universities like Oxford encourage their philosophy students to study maths in their philosophy degrees and most major philosophers have maths backgrounds.

Edited June 25, 2014 by physica

[swansont]

 

I could be wrong with this, but I'm speaking from a philosophical stand point. I think that imaginary time is a property of real space (as the wikipedia describes it). What I see from the wikipedia suggests that imaginary time is a single moment in space where everything that observably exists comes to a complete stop. If you were to navigate imaginary time, you would be navigating through a single moment.

 

 

If you're trying to apply this to the real world in a meaningful way, then you can't brush this aside by saying it's a philosophical standpoint. Imaginary time has to mean something, preferably with a scientific definition so that everyone can use it in the same way.

[Popcorn Sutton]

Here is my definition-

 

Imaginary Time- Noun. 1. A single moment in space. 2. A snapshot of everything in a current, immutable position.

[swansont]

What makes it imaginary? How is this different from just a single moment of regular time?

[Popcorn Sutton]

That's a good question. I'd like to hear what other people think imaginary time is.

 

I think that it's imaginary because you can navigate through that single moment as if it is real time, so, yes, it is a single moment of real time, but you've also used real time by being able to navigate through that single moment. Real time within a moment of real time seems to be imaginary IMO.

[physica]

I think that it's imaginary because you can navigate through that single moment as if it is real time, so, yes, it is a single moment of real time,

This doesn't even make sense.

 

Are you just going to ignore the fact that it's called imaginary time because it uses imaginary numbers??? I'm reposting my last post. You have not addressed it, instead you've ignored it and made something up.

 

lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers.

Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe.

Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers.

Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths.

You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs.

Edited June 25, 2014 by physica

[Popcorn Sutton]

I don't understand the maths physica. I've never studied them and in all actuality I don't think that that is on or ever will be on my agenda because it's not relevant to my expertise. If you can give a quick tutorial I'd appreciate it.

 

Let me change my definition to reflect my actual thoughts about imaginary time.

 

Imaginary Time- Noun. 1. The application of real time within a single, immutable moment of real time, and hence, being imaginary. Ex. "John just disappeared by navigating through imaginary time."

[Sensei]

 

If you square i you get -1. From what I know through programming, sometimes when you add 1 to n as in list[n] (the location of an object on a list), you need to do n-1 to have the correct name to save a file under.

n = 0
while True:
    try:
        search_this = list[n]
        n += 1
        searchgoogle()

with open('/home/' + list[n-1] + '.txt', 'a') as myfile:
        myfile.write(str(item_location))
        myfile.close()

 

OMG..

 

You have to subtract 1 because lists are starting from index 0...

Human indexes are starting from 1.

Computer indexes are starting from 0.

 

If you have list with 4 elements, 1st element is at list[0], 2nd element is at list[1], 3rd element is at list[2] and 4th element is at list[3].

 

There is no imaginary numbers in this (completely nonsense) example.

Edited June 25, 2014 by Sensei

[Popcorn Sutton]

I sent Sensei a PM about that last comment. I'm always thinking from a computational perspective, I really can't help it. I work with code all day now. Sorry for that particular part of the comment, it really had nothing to do with this.

[Nicholas Kang]

lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers.

 

Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe.

 

Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers.

 

Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths.

 

You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs. Again this is why top universities like Oxford encourage their philosophy students to study maths in their philosophy degrees and most major philosophers have maths backgrounds.

Thanks for teaching me maths and physics. I agree with your point.

If you're trying to apply this to the real world in a meaningful way, then you can't brush this aside by saying it's a philosophical standpoint. Imaginary time has to mean something, preferably with a scientific definition so that everyone can use it in the same way.

 

Yes. Science is quintessentially objective. A scientific definition must be universal and everyone can use it in the same way. If not, that is not Science. Think objective, think Science.

[Ophiolite]

I'd like to hear what other people think imaginary time is.

A figment of your imagination.

[Nicholas Kang]

Imagination? Maybe yes but if it is just imagination then why such topic can be published on Wikipedia?

[Ophiolite]

Popcorn Sutton has made a series of poorly argued posts that seem to be based on his misunderstanding of the topic. My post is a gentle reminder to him that he is not making any sense and the source of his non sense lies in his own mind, i.e. his imagination. It is a play on the imagination/imaginary pairing.

 

(When you have to explain these things, they lose any potency they may have had.)

[imatfaal]

This doesn't even make sense.

 

Are you just going to ignore the fact that it's called imaginary time because it uses imaginary numbers??? I'm reposting my last post. You have not addressed it, instead you've ignored it and made something up.

 

lets look at a complex number. It has a real and an imaginary part. The imaginary part does have a consequence to the real number if squared. Does this mean that the imaginary part helps us understand real numbers?? no. Does this mean that all calculations need imaginary components to make sense?? Definitely not. Imaginary numbers are useful when we need to work out square roots of negative numbers but they are not the fundamental underpinning of all maths. In fact that majority of calculations are done without imaginary numbers.

Now lets look at time. Does Einstein's theory of relativity need imaginary numbers?? no. Imaginary numbers in relation to time is used in an unproven hypothesis in a special case of the big bang to suggest that there is no start or end to the universe.

Imaginary numbers in quantum is used in the time-dependent Schrodinger equation, however, when the differential equation is solved the solution consists entirely of real numbers.

Your standpoint isn't philosophical, it's a signpost stating that you have limited knowledge of physics and maths.

You could attempt to do some philosophy. What implications does a imaginary component have on an equation would be a good start. Once this is agreed on it would then be reasonable to apply it to mathematical descriptions of physical constructs.

 

 

Just as an aside - I would argue that complex numbers are essential and fundamental to mathematics; they make some calculations possible and make others hugely easier. And in the world of physics very little apart from the most basic linear mechanics requires the use of complex numbers. Many areas of technological investigation can be accessed without complex numbers but the computations required are prohibitory in their difficulty - whereas with complex numbers the answers just drop out.

 

eg You will get about halfway through a page on wave-equations before realising that the simplest solutions will contain e to the power of i omega t or cos (omega t) + i sin (omega t).

 

Complex numbers are fundamental - but real numbers are a good approximation for most of our uses.

[swansont]

That's a good question. I'd like to hear what other people think imaginary time is.

 

I think that it's imaginary because you can navigate through that single moment as if it is real time, so, yes, it is a single moment of real time, but you've also used real time by being able to navigate through that single moment. Real time within a moment of real time seems to be imaginary IMO.

 

That's completely bass-ackwards.

 

This is a term you basically made up, in the context of this thread, so asking us what it means is a complete non-sequitur.

 

Alternately:

 

I think it means florble. What do you think florble means?

[Popcorn Sutton]

I'm sorry guys I don't know much about math (besides statistics) and I am no theoretical physicist. I don't deal with imaginary numbers and I have no idea how they would play into physics. From what I have acquired, imaginary numbers are useful for predictions and is essential for radar tracking of flights. I do believe that predictions are much stronger by using statistics. I'd like to hear about the differences between imaginary numbers and statistical inference.

 

What I envisioned as imaginary time is probably wayyy off from the actual topic, but I thought that my original speculation was an idea worth contemplation. How would we detect a creature that travels through a single moment of real time is what I was trying to get at.

[Popcorn Sutton]

 

I think that SETI may be interested in searching for that type of creature as well. The way to detect them is to get as fast of a high speed camera as possible and see if you can detect any anomalies (probably with the help of machine learning and pattern recognition).

[swansont]

I'm sorry guys I don't know much about math (besides statistics) and I am no theoretical physicist. I don't deal with imaginary numbers and I have no idea how they would play into physics. From what I have acquired, imaginary numbers are useful for predictions and is essential for radar tracking of flights. I do believe that predictions are much stronger by using statistics. I'd like to hear about the differences between imaginary numbers and statistical inference.

 

What I envisioned as imaginary time is probably wayyy off from the actual topic, but I thought that my original speculation was an idea worth contemplation. How would we detect a creature that travels through a single moment of real time is what I was trying to get at.

 

So it's able to travel through space without advancing in time?

 

You'd need new physics, since this violates what we are currently using.

[physica]

What confuses me is that popcorn starts a thread about a theoretical physics concept, when the maths behind it is elaborated on he ignores it. When the maths is then repeated he then states that he doesn't do maths..... why start a thread on a theoretical physics concept if you're not going to engage in the maths???? The result is that we have some half-baked guess that defies the laws of physics.