Message from @Fran
Discord ID: 637812182507192330
oh no i like this place
I remember some many years ago, I used to occationally watch CNN to get a little update on what's goin on in the world.
i disagree with almost everything here
but its interesting, and so is the debating
I think ONN is a better news source than CNN
Debating? Why bother if you don't believe it?
yeah agreed, The Onion is a better news source tho
spacetime is fake
time is an imaginary dimension of space? really? it was just a hypothetical idea
it would be a little more realistic if you multiplied spacetime by imaginary to obtain a quaternion
space is defined by matter (a standard), time is defined by matter (a standard). How do you bend space and time apart from the matter that defines them?
wym imaginary dimension
yeah i'm curious
I think its pretty clear that to describe an event occurring you need at least 4 coordinates
because the "4th dimension" is c.t.sqrt(-1)
So what coordinates would you use to describe an event
I feel like these two methods would be equivalent
Also if you use an 'imaginary' dimension you run into the issue of the physical significance of an imaginary value of matter or time
Like in the analysis of electrical system you use imaginary numbers to simplify complex equations; then you take the real part of em at the end
the use of imaginary does not need only apply to electrical systems
As opposed to just a real one
What advantage does i^2 = -1 give you
It turns out imaginary numbers are useful for writing waves in terms of exponentials so they pop up there a lot
But idk if you'd call an entire dimension imaginary
Let a system be a function of e^ikt, where i = sqrt(-1), k is a constant, and t is time. The system will oscillate.
yeah but if we say have some a/c current of amplitude A and write it as e^ikt, we take the real part of that when we plot the current vs time
imaginary is good for representing oscillating systems (vibrations, etc.)
Working with physical quantities we concern ourselves in the end with the real part
in optics, imaginary index of refraction is a good way to represent how absorbant the material is
When finding probability distributions of wave functions we take the complex conjugation of the wavefunction and multiply it by the wavefuntion before we integrate
So as to get a real value
refractive index for materials are usually complex values
It's not like we are saying imaginary numbers have physical values however
We end up taking the real part of the equation in the end
the real and the imaginary components have real applications
Yes but I am saying the use of imaginary numbers are used in physical systems so far as during calculations their behavior is similar to sine waves, and simpler to work with, so we work with them there; then when we calculate physical results we take the real part of our imaginary values
I believe the real component refractive index determines the wave propagation speed, while the imaginary component determines the absorbancy, if that's the right word
Yeah but I bet when you calculate physical consequences you end up taking the real part
Its not like we define an entire dimension to be imaginary
a material with a high imaginary refractive index will easily absorb light (not be transparent)