tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424903742453274358.post2906736384930726486..comments2023-08-11T03:47:45.388-05:00Comments on I'm not watching TV: Quantum mechanics without imaginary numbersAndy Rundquisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04900696452285397726noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424903742453274358.post-66772129517351664052011-04-26T18:07:34.654-05:002011-04-26T18:07:34.654-05:00Hello Andy,
Good thinking! i is no longer needed ...Hello Andy, <br />Good thinking! i is no longer needed for relativity either. Einstein's original Pythagorean triangle made the traveling twin's time-trajectory the longer hypotenuse. That's because he drew the time-front as a straight line. He need i for a time-to-length conversion factor to show that the traveler's time-passage was shorter. <br />Then Minkowski showed that the time-front is curved inward, which brings it nearer to the traveler, so that the stay-home twin's trajectory becomes the longer hypotenuse. <br />If we accept that time passes because of the universe's expansion, and expansion's at the limiting speed, the conversion is simplified to 1 sec = 300,000 Km.<br />To sum up, Einstein used i as as a ladder to climb where no man had gone before. Now that we can join him on the summit, it shows no disrespect if we espy another simpler route which wasn't obvious in 1915. <br />With best regards, David.<br />P.s. I'd be glad to send you the diagram but I can't fit it into this box.Davidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4424903742453274358.post-71760319392592824032010-12-14T09:00:05.956-06:002010-12-14T09:00:05.956-06:00I think your formulation of the Schroedinger equat...I think your formulation of the Schroedinger equation as two equations is far better than condensing it through the use of imaginary number symbols, and than using imaginary numbers. I am one of those people that think that imaginary numbers are actually imaginary mathematical toys. The original formulation with imaginary numbers appears to be more concise at first, in that it is a single equation, but it is not really twice as concise because complex numbers have two components, so you end up with two of something anyway. Bravo to you for posting this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com