Title: Imaginary weight Post by: Alef on March 06, 2012, 06:50:28 PM Well, this isn't about new american super model whatsoever having complex weight of real and imaginary mass combined.
In wikipedia there is article explaining what imaginary mass means and where it to use. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_field) Quote unstable massive particles are formally described as having a complex mass, with the real part being their mass in usual sense, and the imaginary part being the decay rate in natural units In short, it is quantum instability or maximal potential energy, something like apple from a tree falling on your head would fit the description of imaginary mass. So imaginary unit i do exist in nature. Title: Re: Imaginary weight Post by: jehovajah on April 24, 2012, 03:59:50 AM We have these "numbers" right? So why not use them? The problem is not the complex numbers, it is the notion of number itself. This notio has undergone radical revision since Newton, and is not really about quantity or magnitude anymore, but about relationships. Mechanical notions like mass are no better, because they conflate several ideas in order to make an equation, not to analyse reality. I think i is the most confusing concept we have come up with, and the only way to get out of it is to develop the dual vector algebra, and the underpinning process algebras. √-1 has inspired some deep thinking and research, and that is its main value. It is not a concept i would rely on any further. |