Register to reply

Are complex numbers just means to an end?

by Jd0g33
Tags: complex, means, numbers
Share this thread:
Jd0g33
#1
Aug3-14, 09:13 PM
P: 326
Do we use imaginary numbers just in the intermediary steps of a predictive theory? For example, in QM, in order to make predictions in the real world, you square the wave function. The wave function might have have all the information, but in order to predict something you must operate on it to remove the imaginary numbers. Is it like this in other areas, like EE, or can you have a predictive answer in terms of imaginary numbers?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Researcher figures out how sharks manage to act like math geniuses
Math journal puts Rauzy fractcal image on the cover
Heat distributions help researchers to understand curved space
DaleSpam
#2
Aug3-14, 09:19 PM
Mentor
P: 17,541
In signal processing you certainly can have meaningful imaginary numbers. Basically, all you need is to have a signal where the magnitude and the phase both encode meaningful information.
Nugatory
#3
Aug3-14, 09:22 PM
Mentor
P: 3,956
Complex numbers are very useful as a means to an end. But even if they weren't so useful, we'd still study them before they're so fascinating in their own right.

HakimPhilo
#4
Aug4-14, 07:11 AM
HakimPhilo's Avatar
P: 70
Are complex numbers just means to an end?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex...s#Applications
julian
#5
Aug4-14, 12:09 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
You cant measure an imaginary number in nature...You can measure the coefficient (real number) of [itex]i[/itex] of the imaginary part of a complex number, but not actually measure an imaginary number. Laws of physics may take a more convenient form in terms of complex numbers, but I think it can be proved that all algebraic manipulations can be done without recourse to complex numbers as well as contour integration.
HallsofIvy
#6
Aug4-14, 12:46 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,682
Quote Quote by julian View Post
You cant measure an imaginary number in nature...You can measure the coefficient (real number) of [itex]i[/itex] of the imaginary part of a complex number, but not actually measure an imaginary number. Laws of physics may take a more convenient form in terms of complex numbers, but I think it can be proved that all algebraic manipulations can be done without recourse to complex numbers as well as contour integration.
How do you "measure a real number in nature"?
julian
#7
Aug4-14, 01:00 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
How do you "measure a real number in nature"?
Now we are getting into the nature of reality and numbers...interesting mathematical and philosophy issue? Not qualified to say much. If others know more about this I'd like to hear about it.
julian
#8
Aug4-14, 01:31 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
Recently looking back at some fluid mechanics notes and found that problems that can be formulated as a complex o.d. diff equation were equivalent to a pair of real coupled partial diff equations. So they are not just convenient for QM calculations...
HallsofIvy
#9
Aug4-14, 01:43 PM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,682
Quote Quote by julian View Post
Now we are getting into the nature of reality and numbers...interesting mathematical and philosophy issue? Not qualified to say much. If others know more about this I'd like to hear about it.
Well, you were the one who said "You cant measure an imaginary number in nature...You can measure the coefficient (real number) of i of the imaginary part of a complex number, but not actually measure an imaginary number."

What did you mean by that? I see no reason to think that "complex numbers are just a means to an end" is any more true (or false) than the same statement about real numbers.
julian
#10
Aug4-14, 01:45 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
Fluid mechanics: It isn't just 2D flow. There are problems that are more easily solved by a complex o.d. diff equation, namely problems involving sinusoidal oscillations. QM involves sinusoidal oscillations - hmm.
julian
#11
Aug4-14, 02:05 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
Quote Quote by HallsofIvy View Post
Well, you were the one who said "You cant measure an imaginary number in nature...You can measure the coefficient (real number) of i of the imaginary part of a complex number, but not actually measure an imaginary number."

What did you mean by that? I see no reason to think that "complex numbers are just a means to an end" is any more true (or false) than the same statement about real numbers.

Well you could call it measuring a complex number but really you are measuring the real numbers that can be extracted from the complex number, for example [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] from [itex]z = a + ib[/itex] or with [itex]z = R e^{i \theta}[/itex] we can extract [itex]R[/itex] and [itex]\theta[/itex]. Formulation of problem to solution can be done without recourse to complex numbers though.
pwsnafu
#12
Aug4-14, 04:33 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 839
Quote Quote by julian View Post
Well you could call it measuring a complex number but really you are measuring the real numbers that can be extracted from the complex number, for example [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] from [itex]z = a + ib[/itex] or with [itex]z = R e^{i \theta}[/itex] we can extract [itex]R[/itex] and [itex]\theta[/itex]. Formulation of problem to solution can be done without recourse to complex numbers though.
Except you can't measure (observe) real numbers either because we don't have infinite precision. We model with the real numbers. Heck you can still do the most important aspects of calculus without the reals, this is called computable analysis.
julian
#13
Aug4-14, 07:06 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
Quote Quote by pwsnafu View Post
computable analysis.
It brings up the Gödel's incompleteness theorem by which we as humans can understand things that would take and infinite number of computations.
julian
#14
Aug4-14, 07:11 PM
PF Gold
P: 342
How do you prove that axb = bxa in a computable manner? It is obvious that this is right, but how do you do this via a computable manner for all a and b? Possibly I could be misunderstanding.
cosmik debris
#15
Aug4-14, 09:59 PM
P: 311
Quote Quote by julian View Post
You cant measure an imaginary number in nature...You can measure the coefficient (real number) of [itex]i[/itex] of the imaginary part of a complex number, but not actually measure an imaginary number. Laws of physics may take a more convenient form in terms of complex numbers, but I think it can be proved that all algebraic manipulations can be done without recourse to complex numbers as well as contour integration.
If you can measure a real number, you can measure a complex one. You can measure phase and amplitude of some physical quantity.
julian
#16
Aug5-14, 10:37 AM
PF Gold
P: 342
You cant measure a physical quantity to be [itex]i[/itex] for example, that was my original point.
HallsofIvy
#17
Aug5-14, 11:47 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,682
And you cannot measure a physical quantity to be [itex]\sqrt{2}[/itex] (or even 2). That was my (and others) point.
Nugatory
#18
Aug5-14, 03:34 PM
Mentor
P: 3,956
The first paragraph or so of http://math.buffalostate.edu/~MED600...s/jacobstm.pdf quotes an amusing and relevant anecdote by Isaac Asimov.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
All real numbers are complex numbers?And are I #'s orthogonal R#'s? General Math 7
Strange real numbers requiring use of complex numbers to exist General Math 7
Split-complex numbers and dual numbers General Math 1
Complex numbers representing Real numbers General Math 3
Complex numbers - are they the 'ultimate', or are there any complex complex numbers Calculus 7