Imaginary Time: now this is what EXOTIC means!

[Gibsense]

The world of quantum mechanics embraces the concept of imaginary time to explain certain phenomena. It assumes a spatial direction at right angles to 'real-time'.
I wonder if the word 'imaginary' disguises the possibility of 5 real spatial dimensions. This would involve the whole of history being expanded (sideways) to produce a whole (timeless?) imaginary variation of history.
A new imaginary past, present and future derived from our universe. What if it is reality? It would be an evolution of our history. It would be an evolution of your history.
I think I mentioned - in another thread - the possibility (to me anyway) that the quantum world exists in some form or other perhaps like a country landscape and that periodically our universe passes through it and modifications occur with each pass of our universe (a series of recurring timewaves). The difference between the Quantum world and the Macro world is not only in size but also in fundamental type. Both are entirely different things that interact, maybe.
If we stretch this a bit further we might consider that the Quantum Landscape is the important evolution and not our Universe which is relegated to a method of implementation!
We must take care as individual components in the process so that we too do not become irrelevant and are therefore discontinued.

 

[Gibsense]

https://i.postimg.cc/VkdDCrbr/Modified-Lemaitre-Style.jpg[/img][/url]

[/url][/IMG] I looked at the diagrams for Lemaitre's ideas and modified the labels. All similar diagrams have time as some mysterious arrow which I have changed to Imaginary time. Also, the space within the circles normally represents nothing, but in the chart, it is the expansion driven by our 'ordinary' time. Each ellipse represents a hypersphere (that is 3 dimensions dropped to leave just a circle - the circumference is the hypersphere)
NB no acceleration of expansion is shown (I think it could be misleadingly due to time dilation)

 

[promytius]

Doesn't the notion of imaginary time being real fly in the face of definitions?

 

[Gibsense]

Doesn't the notion of imaginary time being real fly in the face of definitions?

Perhaps. The fact that it is useful mathematically neither proves its reality nor denies it. The word 'imaginary' is just a label with a hint

 

[promytius]

Conceptually I have trouble separating time as a measurement and time as a dimension. Melding time into Space - well, that's above my pay grade.
In considering the relative importance of the quantum landscape compared to the Universe in evolutionary terms, perhaps the more instructive path would be, as you say, towards quantum evolution as a way to remain relevant and present. However there's plenty of room for both.
It's difficult to imagine time operating in two or more directions at once. It's difficult to fit time into any other costume than an arrow. One arrow. Even when trying to resolve relative movements of two discrete objects, time is one-directional in the calculations. The time traveler's watch ticks one second every second, no matter where or when he goes; so does the watch of the person who stayed behind. When he returns, both watches tick off one second every second. So the times are measured correctly, the effects of acceleration (time travel) did something to something in the Space-Time continuum, and that's where it loses me. We need a new word, I need a new word, for this phenomena to help me understand it. Space-time is a macro world term; does it work on the quantum level; does it work differently? How do the concept of time and the use of time as a measurement resolve?
Last, each 'territory' has such hugeness and tininess that it becomes a blurry mess to the human brain. Numbers so small you cannot possible imagine: femtoseconds; distances so vast you cannot fit it into your brain: parsec. In both there are distances beyond which we can only "imagine/conceptualize" and so for me, it's hard to conceive of any limit in either direction.
oh, and I think homo sapiens have an EOL date, no matter what we study.

 

[Gibsense]

It's difficult to imagine time operating in two or more directions at once. It's difficult to fit time into any other costume than an arrow.

It is not difficult once explained. An arrow is just fine. For you, time is an arrow but its direction varies.

The facts (as best established by current science):

1. Time has a direction (spacetime calls it a dimension) ALWAYS at 90 degrees to the space in which it occurs
2. 3D Space is curved (very slightly as a universe and very much near mass)

Given the two facts above you must accept the logic that the direction (or if you insist - the orientation of time) cannot be parallel everywhere.

 

[Gibsense]

The time traveler's watch ticks one second every second, no matter where or when he goes; so does the watch of the person who stayed behind. When he returns, both watches tick off one second every second. So the times are measured correctly, the effects of acceleration (time travel) did something to something in the Space-Time continuum, and that's where it loses me.

Bearing in mind the comments re time orthogonal to space then it follows that if time varies between relative frames of reference (between people travelling at different speeds) space also must rotate when comparing one to the other (frames). This where Spacetime (as a concept) and curved space within 4 spatial dimensions are different.

Imagine an object in a 4D space having the ability to orientate within the 4 dimensions rather than a fixed orientation. Imagine a 2-dimensional plane able to orientate itself in any direction in say air. It is still a 2D plane but it exists in 3 spatial dimensions and so can point any which way. Similarly, a 3 d object in 4 spatial dimensions can point any which way.

The orientation then becomes 'in relationship to the orientation to which its speed is relative'. Consequently, both time and space (for the 3d object) become rotated compared to most of the mass in the universe. Now this is becoming a hypothesis unverified in any way except by logic for the time being and perhaps is better expressed as a separate post which I can attempt soon for a debate. Maybe.

PS Bear in mind in 4d space knots get untangled, and links are not linked and we would call it Magic.