Nicholas Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Hawking has introduced the mathematics of imaginary time in order to curve the universe back on itself. It is an untestable mathematical model. It might mean something if we could measure it. Where is Stephen Hawking's imaginary clock? He needs to show us or his idea must be relegated to the the status of nonexistence; like some do with the Aether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EL Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Hawking is a surfer, a wave-rider and a benefactor. Let him say whatever he wishes to say, or sue him for misusing your taxes. When a pseudoscientist claims that logical coherence and theory consistency is not required, then what else remain for our sanity! Non-local, virtual, imaginary drool should remain as a dream or fiction at best. Science was hit hard and got sick a century ago, so let us hope for a recovery ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Exactly what are you two referring to? I've not heard anything about an imaginary clock, so could you please elaborate? This idea sounds very intriguing, and I (being absolutely fabulous and yet so very modest) will soon have it figured out in no time! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 Transdecimal I bring up "his" imaginary clock because he believes in an imaginary time. He talks about it in his book A Brief History Of Time. He says that it goes at a right angle to conventional time and that it is a second curvature that closes the universe. But I say if you are going to talk about a physical concept you ought to be able to measure it. So Imaginary time needs an Imaginary clock to measure it!!! Of course this is a pun. But it makes the point. If Hawking wants us to believe it he ought to be able to show us how to measure it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daecon Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Ah, right. Like the 2D time thing? I was just reading the thread about it on here. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12629 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Imaginary time is just an artifact to make the metric Euclidean rather than Minkowski. It has no measurable consequences, but is just a different way of presenting the theory. It is completely equivalent to 'real' time, and neither version is 'right' or 'wrong'. EL: What are you smoking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 Wrong severian. Hawking claims Imaginary time is a second curvature that closes the universe. Where is Hawkings imaginary clock to measure that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Wrong severian. Hawking claims Imaginary time is a second curvature that closes the universe. WTF? you just flat out told a resident physics expert that he was wrong and you r "reasoning" is just a nonsensical technobabble phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicholas Posted July 11, 2005 Author Share Posted July 11, 2005 He is no authority. I have none. Before you judge me look at what Hawking has said. I can tell you where to find it. He says imaginary time has a physical consequence; in fact a cosmological one. And BTW just because you know what Einstein has said doesn't make you anybody dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 1)he knows more than you do, so drop the arrogance. 2)a popscience book is not a technical resource. 3) where does the "And BTW just because you know what Einstein has said doesn't make you anybody dad." come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Wrong severian. Hawking claims Imaginary time is a second curvature that closes the universe. Where is Hawkings imaginary clock to measure that? You do understand that "imaginary" refers to a mathamatical tool (the square root of -1) and doesn't mean "make-believe." Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 He is no authority.I have none. Before you judge me look at what Hawking has said. I can tell you where to find it. He says imaginary time has a physical consequence; in fact a cosmological one. And BTW just because you know what Einstein has said doesn't make you anybody dad. I will admit that I may have the wrong end of the stick' date=' since I am not very sure what Hawking has said about this. I was assuming that he was talking about the metric shift (that is what people normally mean when they say 'imaginary time') but of course it could be something entirely different. Could you please provide a link to the source? You also contradict yourself: It is an untestable mathematical model. He says imaginary time has a physical consequence Which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MetaFrizzics Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Actually, Hawking's idea is complex and confusing: He began searching for a Quantum Gravity theory: In quantum gravity' date=' there is also a certain uncertainty in the geometry of spacetime. ...it becomes important at very small distance and time scales...Hawking suggested progress might be made using Imaginary Time (IT). Imaginary time is related to real time the same way imaginary numbers are related to real numbers. IT physics is an Alice-in-wonderland version...with particles faster than light and backward in time...Of course when turned into an approximation of QM everything works out.... Hartle & Hawking (H-H) applied the imaginary-time trick to cosmology on a simplified model of the universe...it did possess a singularity under classical GTR. But the QM version had no singularity. Its still open whether the H-H idea can be applied to the real universe.[/quote'] ...just a sample from Readers Companion to A Brief History of Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan2here Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 Ive read the whole thread, Im still confused. If Imagenery time has "no mesurable outcome" is it a bit like the future. Somthing a long way away (like the moon) we can see. Somthing a long time away (like next week) we cannot see untill next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 17, 2005 Share Posted July 17, 2005 [bubble=bender] Not every reply of yours needs to include B. B. Rodriguez, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now