You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Maxwell’s 1873 treatise on electricity and magnetism definitely avoided the use of imaginary exponentials for describing the space-time variations of the electric and magnetic fields. For this reason he invented real hyperbolic functions. The hyperbolic sine and cosine are given as sinh(x)=(exp(x)-exp(-x))/2 and cosh(x)=(exp(x)+exp(-x))/2. It appears that the argument x is most likely rational. In contrast the imaginary exponentials are given by sin(q)=(exp(iq)-exp(-iq))/2i and cos(q)=(exp(iq)+exp(-iq))/2. It appears that the argument q is most likely a multiple of irrational number, p.
Modern conscientious authors on classical electromagnetism cautiously pointed out these differences and strongly emphasized the use of only the real parts in every application. However, the physical descriptions of the imaginary parts started the old and new quantum revolution: old – Bohr, Sommerfeld, and Schrödinger; new – Heisenberg, Dirac, Born, and Jordan. Starting with Schrödinger complex imaginary wave equation, even though its solutions are imaginary wavefunctions, quantum physicists were capable of extracting eigenvalues of real energy quanta. Furthermore, the square absolute of the conjugate product becomes the probability of a particular location for the manifestation of elementary particles. Nonetheless, those fields of infinite degrees of freedom remain imaginary with brief moment’s appearances of virtual particles in high energy experiments. True dynamic physical balance between real and imaginary exponential pairs can be restored only by the use of square symmetric Hadamard matrices as space-time quanta of energy squares.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
The Following User Says Thank You to AntonioLao For This Useful Post:
Re: real vs. imaginary e-pairs -
02-28-2008, 04:25 PM
We must keep this real,and leave out the imaginary e-pairs,we must remain focussed
and be ardent in our attempt to release the fusional power of energy entwined.
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
The Following User Says Thank You to mkirkpatrick For This Useful Post:
Re: real vs. imaginary e-pairs -
03-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick
Shakepeare was a lucid dreamer
It is still a mystery how he could produce so much in such a short period of time? Some think that Shakespeare might represents the works of many persons put together.
Time independence: [∂E(g)]²=[∂F(a)×∂r(a)]·[∂F(b)×∂r(b)] and Mass independence: ¶a(t)·¶r(t)=c²
Re: real vs. imaginary e-pairs -
03-01-2008, 02:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntonioLao
It is still a mystery how he could produce so much in such a short period of time? Some think that Shakespeare might represents the works of many persons put together.
Yes indeed,i have heard this too.Some say Francis Bacon did the work.
regards michael.
Humilty,coupled with boldness,surprises truth to
reveal herself?
The Following User Says Thank You to mkirkpatrick For This Useful Post:
Re: real vs. imaginary e-pairs -
02-28-2008, 04:25 PM
