Logo by chaos_crystal - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Visit the official fractalforums.com Youtube Channel
 
Home Help Search Gallery Downloads Login Register
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. April 20, 2024, 05:13:49 AM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Welcome to Fractal Forums > Fractal Math, Chaos Theory & Research > General Discussion > Mathematics > Imaginary weight
Pages: [1]   Go Down
« previous next »
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Imaginary weight  (Read 3895 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Alef
Fractal Supremo
*****
Posts: 1174



WWW
« 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/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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 06:53:16 PM by Asdam » Logged
fractal catalisator
jehovajah
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2749


May a trochoid in the void bring you peace


WWW
« Reply #1 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.
Logged
May a trochoid of ¥h¶h iteratively entrain your Logos Response transforming into iridescent fractals of orgasmic delight and joy, with kindness, peace and gratitude at all scales within your experience. I beg of you to enrich others as you have been enriched, in vorticose pulsations of extravagance!
Pages: [1]   Go Down
« previous next »
  Print  
« previous next »
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
New Flame fractal algorithm for weight estimation? IFS - Iterated Function Systems paxinum 0 2265 Last post July 08, 2010, 05:34:46 PM
by paxinum
Awesome Imaginary Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) Eric B 0 887 Last post February 04, 2014, 08:14:50 PM
by Eric B
Imaginary Crag Still Frame Peter Wilkinson 0 1012 Last post May 13, 2014, 06:18:54 AM
by Peter Wilkinson
ix: imaginary parameter space Still Frame - Wildstyle mfg 0 996 Last post May 29, 2016, 06:20:51 AM
by mfg
Light weight Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) Caleidoscope 0 1315 Last post October 13, 2017, 10:18:10 PM
by Caleidoscope

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.195 seconds with 28 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.006s, 2q)