Does the use of complex numbers in equations imply a relationship to time?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of complex numbers in equations, particularly in the context of quantum mechanics, and whether their presence implies a relationship to time. Participants explore theoretical implications, definitions of probabilities, and the nature of mathematical representations in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the time-independent Schrödinger equation does not involve complex numbers, while the time-dependent equation does, raising questions about the implications of complex numbers in relation to time.
  • One participant argues that not all complex numbers relate to time and emphasizes that probabilities must be real numbers within the interval [0,1].
  • Another participant suggests that since everything exists in time, even numbers can be represented by particles, and proposes that multiplying imaginary probabilities could yield real numbers.
  • Concerns are raised about the assumptions underlying the use of complex numbers in modeling particles and probabilities, questioning the physical meaning of operations involving complex conjugates.
  • It is suggested that while something may exist in time, its properties may not necessarily be functions of time, using the example of a constant charge of an electron.
  • A participant asserts that a constant charge can be considered a function of time, as it satisfies the definition of a function.
  • One participant expresses skepticism about the fundamental nature of complex numbers, suggesting they are often used to introduce additional variables or dimensions in physics for convenience.
  • A reference is made to Cramer's transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics as a related concept.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the relationship between complex numbers and time, with no consensus reached. Some argue against the assumption that complex numbers imply a temporal relationship, while others propose connections between time and mathematical representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations in assumptions regarding the nature of complex numbers, the definition of probabilities, and the physical interpretation of mathematical constructs. Unresolved questions remain about the implications of these assumptions in the context of quantum mechanics.

Rothiemurchus
Messages
203
Reaction score
1
The time independent Schrödinger equation doesn't involve complex numbers.
The time-dependent equation does involve complex numbers.
When a complex number appears in an equation or expression can we assume that there is some underlying relation to time?
So if I had a probability such as 1/4 + i / 8 could this be a probability that
varies with time?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No. You cannot assume all complex numbers relate to time (they don't), and probabilities are defined to be real numbers (in the interval [0,1]
 
Isn't it true though that everything exists in time?
Even a number.I could represent a number by 1 electron,2 electrons etc.
electrons exist in time.Also I could multiply 2 imaginary probabilities together
for two events occurring at the same time and get a real number (using the complex conjugate).If all particles are ultimately made from 2 smaller particles,this would seem a legitimate thing to do.
 
If everything exists in time, then what do you care about the "time independent" equation for? If we accept that mathematical things have a physical existence and thus exist in time, then you've just answered your own question with a trivial answer. Moreover you seem to think that maths is (particle) physics

And for the second time: probabilities are real numbers in the interval [0,1], unless we're doing some very weird theoretical physics/maths.

Your last conclusion has some very large and unspecified assumuptions:

that particles can be modeled with complex numbers; that these elements in the model are probabilities; that when you multiply two arbitray complex numbers together you get something real; that taking the conjugate is meaningful phyisically and even permitted...
 
It might be useful to say here that although something may exist in time, it's properties may not be a 'function' of time.

For example, an isolated electron with a charge q may exist in time. But that charge remains constant for all time i.e. q it is not a function of time.

This applies generally, even to complex numbers.
 
q(t) = q is a function of t, it is just a constant function, that is all (ie it satisfies every reasonable definition of function you care to write out).
 
Rothiemurchus said:
When a complex number appears in an equation or expression can we assume that there is some underlying relation to time

I confess that my maths is more rusty than Mars but complex numbers don't seem to be anything that fundamental. I found that they seem to be slipped in when a physicist wants to add an extra variable, dimension or degree of freedom but wants to keep their equation looking similar and then they find that it makes the interpretation of the extra quantity or the maths easier, so they keep it.

I'd love to believe that it meant it had something to do with the special imaginary part of the universe where the soul exists, but I don't.
 
See Cramer's transactional interpretaion of QM.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K