complex time revisited

Here is a note I just sent to sci.physics.research as a followup
in the thread "arrow of time" and if it passes moderation it
should be on there within a few hours after I post this one.

I guess in theories of complex time, or two variable time as
I said in summer 1994 but later posed it as complex time,
another arrow of time could be the complex phase angle,
so atan(t_i/t_r). But of course the thing about complex
time, which I have noted before, is that now we can say
that t_i/t_r is very small, perhaps, but that very near
the Big Bang or supposed Big Bang that ratio is non-negligible
and said phase angle significantly different from zero.
But even now perhaps there is anisotropy in the t_i .

Now all that is pretty much brainstorming since I have
not yet reviewed what others have done with the idea
of complex time and when I do I may have more ideas.

Followups set to sci.physics .

David
http://www.nfld.com/~dalton

David Dalton wrote in message ...
Here is a note I just sent to sci.physics.research as a followup
in the thread "arrow of time" and if it passes moderation it
should be on there within a few hours after I post this one.

I guess in theories of complex time, or two variable time as
I said in summer 1994 but later posed it as complex time,
another arrow of time could be the complex phase angle,
so atan(t_i/t_r). But of course the thing about complex
time, which I have noted before, is that now we can say
that t_i/t_r is very small, perhaps, but that very near
the Big Bang or supposed Big Bang that ratio is non-negligible
and said phase angle significantly different from zero.
But even now perhaps there is anisotropy in the t_i .

Now all that is pretty much brainstorming since I have
not yet reviewed what others have done with the idea
of complex time and when I do I may have more ideas.


Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.

Paul Cardinale

In article ,
says...
David Dalton wrote in message ...
Here is a note I just sent to sci.physics.research as a followup
in the thread "arrow of time" and if it passes moderation it
should be on there within a few hours after I post this one.

I guess in theories of complex time, or two variable time as
I said in summer 1994 but later posed it as complex time,
another arrow of time could be the complex phase angle,
so atan(t_i/t_r). But of course the thing about complex
time, which I have noted before, is that now we can say
that t_i/t_r is very small, perhaps, but that very near
the Big Bang or supposed Big Bang that ratio is non-negligible
and said phase angle significantly different from zero.
But even now perhaps there is anisotropy in the t_i .

Now all that is pretty much brainstorming since I have
not yet reviewed what others have done with the idea
of complex time and when I do I may have more ideas.


Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.

Paul Cardinale


Sort of agree as far as the clock is concerned.

Complex time does sometimes appear in our calculations. What exactly it
means, we have no idea?

You may want to examine this article where complex time is used.

http://xyz.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/9501015
How much time does a tunneling particle spend in the barrier region?
paper by Aephraim M. Steinberg




--
In a logical world, the human race would have been extinct long ago as
no man would put up with a woman for long and any man who did, would
find that no logical woman would have kids.

Observations of Bernard - No 61

Dear Bernardz:

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1b38a4d0abc3a9c7989ab4@news...
In article ,
says...
....
Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.


Sort of agree as far as the clock is concerned.

Complex time does sometimes appear in our calculations. What exactly it
means, we have no idea?

Complex exponents can be resolved into sine and cosine functions. So
perhaps complex time could be represented as both time and space.

David A. Smith

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:00:22 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bernardz:

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1b38a4d0abc3a9c7989ab4@news...
In article ,
says...
...
Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.


Sort of agree as far as the clock is concerned.

Complex time does sometimes appear in our calculations. What exactly it
means, we have no idea?

Complex exponents can be resolved into sine and cosine functions. So
perhaps complex time could be represented as both time and space.

You do realize you are dangeriously close to describing strings?


David A. Smith

Dear 00:00:00Hg:

"00:00:00Hg" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:00:22 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bernardz:

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1b38a4d0abc3a9c7989ab4@news...
In article ,
says...
...
Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.


Sort of agree as far as the clock is concerned.

Complex time does sometimes appear in our calculations. What exactly
it
means, we have no idea?

Complex exponents can be resolved into sine and cosine functions. So
perhaps complex time could be represented as both time and space.

You do realize you are dangeriously close to describing strings?

Shhhhh! I'm not that far in the book yet!

Next you'll tell me the butler did it...

Besides I'm still studying Penrose, and I like his philosophy.

David A. Smith

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 21:14:37 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear 00:00:00Hg:

"00:00:00Hg" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 18:00:22 -0700, N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:

Dear Bernardz:

"Bernardz" wrote in message
news:MPG.1b38a4d0abc3a9c7989ab4@news...
In article ,
says...
...
Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.


Sort of agree as far as the clock is concerned.

Complex time does sometimes appear in our calculations. What exactly
it
means, we have no idea?

Complex exponents can be resolved into sine and cosine functions. So
perhaps complex time could be represented as both time and space.

You do realize you are dangeriously close to describing strings?

Shhhhh! I'm not that far in the book yet!

Next you'll tell me the butler did it...

Besides I'm still studying Penrose, and I like his philosophy.

Well, as regards time your comment struck me, and the method is
quite true and real. I long ago discovered it to be more than true.

I stuck the math for it into a script and daemonized it. If you can
telnet then; telnet 64.72.98.12 2002
and you will see your supposition in action (In central standard time).





David A. Smith

(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message om...

Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.

Paul Cardinale

Newton said "time is defined to make motion look simple". The crucial
property is to be able to order events. The real numbers satisfy
"Achimedean ordering" which says of any two real numbers T1 and T2,
one of the following is true: T1=T2; T1T2; T1T2. For time this is
interpreted as T1 and T2 simultaneous, T1 earlier than T2, T1 later
than T2, respectively. This ordering fails for complex numbers or any
"higher dimensional" time and confirms Paul's conclusion.

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.physics.]
On 2004-06-15, Rob Woodside wrote:
(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message om...

Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.

Paul Cardinale

Newton said "time is defined to make motion look simple". The crucial
property is to be able to order events. The real numbers satisfy
"Achimedean ordering" which says of any two real numbers T1 and T2,
one of the following is true: T1=T2; T1T2; T1T2. For time this is
interpreted as T1 and T2 simultaneous, T1 earlier than T2, T1 later
than T2, respectively. This ordering fails for complex numbers or any
"higher dimensional" time and confirms Paul's conclusion.

Well, actually, we can't uniquely order events that have a space-like
seperation, thanks to relativity (and that's just SR. GR makes it worse
(or better))

--
Aaron Denney
--

(Rob Woodside) wrote in message . com...
(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message om...

Complex numbers are two dimensional. We observe time to be one
dimensional. Until you can describe how to build a clock that shows
two dimensions of time, all your talk of 'complex time' is just
garbage.

Paul Cardinale

Newton said "time is defined to make motion look simple". The crucial
property is to be able to order events. The real numbers satisfy
"Achimedean ordering" which says of any two real numbers T1 and T2,
one of the following is true: T1=T2; T1T2; T1T2. For time this is
interpreted as T1 and T2 simultaneous, T1 earlier than T2, T1 later
than T2, respectively. This ordering fails for complex numbers or any
"higher dimensional" time and confirms Paul's conclusion.

Well that is standard time zone mathe-ma-gibberish,
refuted by none other than Descartes, almost
immediately after the "principle" was "discovered".
Time is only *defined* to make *Law* simple, for
the simpletons and their religion.
It is has nothing to do with motion.

Or as the only true statement about mathematicians,
their Psychologists, their telescopes, telephones,
bells, numbers, greasy thumbs, and maps of the Stars goes,
as stated by Tom Hanks in Forest Gump, before his
Magnum Opus in Apollo.

--- Simple is as simple does ---.