Yes, another mathematical simplification!
Quantum theory introduces the concept of imaginary time. Think of ordinary time as a horizontal line. On the left is the past, and on the right is the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time! Being perpendicular to real-time, it allows for everything to occur all at once.
Imaginary time is used in several equations across quantum mechanics and general relativity and brings us back round to Wick's rotation.
Author of Alice in Wonderland, Lewis Carroll (aka mathematician Charles Dodgson) did not believe that it was justified to use imaginary numbers in mathematics.
In the Mad Hatter's tea party it was always tea-time, no matter the time, because time had left the room. According to Dodgson, the whole world would eventually turn into a massive Mad Hatter’s tea party if imaginary numbers had their way.
I read it here: https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sciences/what-is-imaginary-time.html
Last edited:
My mission was to explain the term to a wider audience.
We're all learning all the time.
It does for the earth realm of this universe. Everyone needs to buy into the realness of spacetime prior to experiencing the earth realm, otherwise intended experience not possible.
I had a look at the paper on Gravity interacting with photons, and it seems within the area of the well-known. We know gravity bends light. And gravity fields have mass themselves.
Rodney Bartlett seems to be a hobbyist physicist without a college affiliation. He seems to be using a geometrical approach to Physics, which is OK, since Quaternions are another way of doing calculations aside the more commonplace Scalars, Vectors and Tensors.
Totally above my pay grade, mathematically, so hard to know if he has achieved anything. I found another paper of his where he discusses Anyons, which might be a dark matter candidate:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35006695/anyons-incredible-particle-quantum-computing/
His 2019 paper:
file:///home/steve/Downloads/preprints202106.0421.v2-1.pdf
All far too difficult for most of us, I think.
I am trying to refresh my knowledge of Classical Mechanics:
Very interesting discussion of symmetry and Noether's Theorem and a refresher on Vectors and Scalars. I am also reading Susskind's book on Classical Mechanics. The Theoretical Minimum series.
Classical Mechanics is full of surprises on Forces. Centrifugal Force and Coriolis Force for instance.
Rodney Bartlett seems to be a hobbyist physicist without a college affiliation. He seems to be using a geometrical approach to Physics, which is OK, since Quaternions are another way of doing calculations aside the more commonplace Scalars, Vectors and Tensors.
Totally above my pay grade, mathematically, so hard to know if he has achieved anything. I found another paper of his where he discusses Anyons, which might be a dark matter candidate:
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a35006695/anyons-incredible-particle-quantum-computing/
His 2019 paper:
file:///home/steve/Downloads/preprints202106.0421.v2-1.pdf
All far too difficult for most of us, I think.
I am trying to refresh my knowledge of Classical Mechanics:
Very interesting discussion of symmetry and Noether's Theorem and a refresher on Vectors and Scalars. I am also reading Susskind's book on Classical Mechanics. The Theoretical Minimum series.
Classical Mechanics is full of surprises on Forces. Centrifugal Force and Coriolis Force for instance.
Flat particles that only exist in two dimensional realms!
Not so much a doughnut as a pancake!
;-)
We "know", at best, "materials" "bend" "light"-)
According to RT, "gravity" would "let" "light" "fall"-)
That also gravity FIELDS (!!!) would have mass, is, as if magnetic field lines had thickness. Pure NONSENSE;-)
This is consequence of missing ontology, more exactly: missing distinction of object and concept: Our "physicists" are mostly "philosophers", and also only unsuitable;-)
We "know", at best, "materials" "bend" "light"-)
According to RT, "gravity" would "let" "light" "fall"-)
That also gravity FIELDS (!!!) would have mass, is, as if magnetic field lines had thickness. Pure NONSENSE;-)
This is consequence of missing ontology, more exactly: missing distinction of object and concept: Our "physicists" are mostly "philosophers", and also only unsuitable;-)
As an interested home Physics student, I don't have much problem with Classical Gravity and General Relativity. All seems to work.
Our Quantum friends do have problems with it. It's not Quantum enough for them!
Of course the GR equation is easy enough to write down. But is, AFAIK, a nightmare to solve except for simple symmetrical cases.
If Rodney Bartlett's musings on photons and gravitons are pursued, we must know that Electromagnetism is linear, but Gravity is not.
Hot debate at Researchgate on this, got quite abusive actually:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/W...e-comparatively-stronger-electric-force-limit
Ah, what joy. Top Physicist Gerard t Hooft explains it in slightly less than layman's terms.
Some grumbles from the back of the class about "Professionals"!
I suspect he hasn't done his homework!
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/gravity_of_gravity/
Hope that clears it up.
Our Quantum friends do have problems with it. It's not Quantum enough for them!
Of course the GR equation is easy enough to write down. But is, AFAIK, a nightmare to solve except for simple symmetrical cases.
If Rodney Bartlett's musings on photons and gravitons are pursued, we must know that Electromagnetism is linear, but Gravity is not.
Hot debate at Researchgate on this, got quite abusive actually:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/W...e-comparatively-stronger-electric-force-limit
Ah, what joy. Top Physicist Gerard t Hooft explains it in slightly less than layman's terms.
Some grumbles from the back of the class about "Professionals"!
I suspect he hasn't done his homework!
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/gravity_of_gravity/
Hope that clears it up.
Last edited:
If we would accept Quantum as nonsense (concept), maybe we would also realize that the increase of nonsense did not make more sense;-)
.. or Quanta? Summation of nonsense-s;-?
The reification of concepts happens unintentionally via nounification in language:
For example: vacuum = emptiness (incorrect word) = nothing; no-thing, no thing; much more exact: not!
(NOT does not exist: has no space. Space has no/not NOT. Not does not fluctuate. And so on;-)
... "Space" is at best a synonym for "not"-)
.. or Quanta? Summation of nonsense-s;-?
The reification of concepts happens unintentionally via nounification in language:
For example: vacuum = emptiness (incorrect word) = nothing; no-thing, no thing; much more exact: not!
(NOT does not exist: has no space. Space has no/not NOT. Not does not fluctuate. And so on;-)
... "Space" is at best a synonym for "not"-)
"The gravity of gravity" - I liked it!
It was interesting to read how non-linearity distinguishes general relativity from electromagnetic radiation.
That is, the Einstein field equations are non-linear while Maxwell's equations are linear.