[Boards: 3 / a / aco / adv / an / asp / b / biz / c / cgl / ck / cm / co / d / diy / e / fa / fit / g / gd / gif / h / hc / his / hm / hr / i / ic / int / jp / k / lgbt / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / news / o / out / p / po / pol / qa / qst / r / r9k / s / s4s / sci / soc / sp / t / tg / toy / trash / trv / tv / u / v / vg / vip /vp / vr / w / wg / wsg / wsr / x / y ] [Search | Home]
I don't fully understand imaginary time,...
If images are not shown try to refresh the page. If you like this website, please disable any AdBlock software!

You are currently reading a thread in /sci/ - Science & Math

File: Time.jpg (33 KB, 231x346) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
33 KB, 231x346
I don't fully understand imaginary time, what does he mean by this and why are there no singularities in imaginary time?

pic related
>>
When we do a wick rotation, i.e. using an imaginary time coordinate ${t_E} = it$, the path integral we use to describe a theory will become a euclidean path integral. $\int {\mathcal{D}\varphi {e^{iS\left[ \varphi \right]}}} \to \int {\mathcal{D}\varphi } {e^{ - {S_E}\left[ \varphi \right]}}$

This allows to equate a QFT with a quantum statistical mechanics theory as the path integral takes the form of a partition function. The euclidean path integrals tend to me easier to evaluate and diverge less.
>>
Well, consider how we view the universe.

We see a three-dimensional world with one dimension of time, seeming to move unilaterally from start to finish.

In order for Hawking to be able to imply that the universe had no beginning or end, he simply suggested that maybe TIME has an additional dimension orthogonal to the time we perceive.

If time is shaped how we think it is, then imaginary time, according to Hawking, would be spherically-shaped. This implies that the universe has neither beginning, nor end.
>>
>>7770642
this response is complete garbage
>>
>>7770597
OP here, if I didn't understand Hawking what made you think that would make it any clearer?
>>
>>7770907

>thinks /sci/ exists to elucidate anything

Questions about the nature of reality belong in /r/
>>
File: 1431549554614.png (139 KB, 1920x1200) Image search: [iqdb] [SauceNao] [Google]
139 KB, 1920x1200
>>7770538

fuck off
>>
>>7770907
I gave you an answer. If you can't understand it then maybe you shouldn't be trying to study theoretical physics. Go learn the prereqs if you ever really want to understand it.
>>
>>7770922
>muh elitism

tip harder scrub
>>
>>7771010
>hey pal, what's the trick for deadlifting 800 pounds?
>Well, Anon, you train for years, eat right, sleep well, and maybe some-
>elitist scum, tip harder scrub because I could totally lift it if you'd just explain how
>>
>>7771040
>what is false equivalency
>>
>>7771316
You're right. You definitely get a suitable explanation of all the concepts that physicists take years, even decades, to learn and may never fully understand, from a book that was written to be readable by a mass audience with no background. How silly of the other anon to think otherwise.
>>
>>7771040
More like
>Hey pal, I've decided to turn my life around and start working out, what's th-
>FUCK OFF CASUAL
>>
>>7770907
Trying to introduce Wick rotations into a pop-sci book was a mistake.
You can't understand it because it isn't reasonable for a non-specialist to understand.
If you want a better idea of what is going on, look up complex numbers.