Existence of experience related to i

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of irrational numbers and their relation to physical quantities. It is mentioned that while we can assign a physical quantity to rational numbers, the same cannot be done for irrational numbers. The discussion also touches upon the history and use of imaginary numbers and their role in solving equations. The topic of measuring irrational lengths is also explored, with the conclusion that while lengths in a mathematical model can be irrational, measured lengths are limited by the resolution of our measuring instruments.
  • #1
Cantor080
20
0
If we have solution of an equation as x=1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 apple, 1 excess certain thing, etc. And, if we have solution of an equation as x=-1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 deficient apple, 1 deficient certain thing, etc. Is there any experience, similarly, for x=i?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
One cannot have physical quantity of an irrational number either, only rational numbers can be counted
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #3
BWV said:
One cannot have physical quantity of an irrational number either, only rational numbers can be counted
Of irrational number? Though yet not clear to me, it seems that we can give physical quantity of irrational length.
 
  • #4
Cantor080 said:
If we have solution of an equation as x=1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 apple, 1 excess certain thing, etc. And, if we have solution of an equation as x=-1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 deficient apple, 1 deficient certain thing, etc. Is there any experience, similarly, for x=i?
This question is actually thousands of years old, only that in ancient times, people asked:
We have a square of length ##1##, but is there an expression for its diagonal? We cannot tell how many parts of ##1## are needed to draw it without the square! We have a ratio between circumference ##C## and diameter ##D## of a circle, but we cannot draw a line of this length!

Kronecker once said "God made the integers, all else is the work of man."

So the question about the imaginary unit is in the same realm. It solves our equation ##x^2+1=0## which makes it useful to operate with. Same as ##\sqrt{2}## solved ## 1^2+ 1^2=x^2## and ##\pi ## solved ##x = C/D##. People always simply bought the tools they needed to accomplish a task. ##\sqrt{2}## was as imaginary to the ancient Greeks, as ##i## was two thousand years later to our ancestors. They even called it not rational, same as we use imaginary.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970 and Cantor080
  • #5
Cantor080 said:
Of irrational number? Though yet not clear to me, it seems that we can give physical quantity of irrational length.
Well, you could as well do for ##i##. Have a closer look into physics: ##i\cdot\hbar## is all over the place. Only that we do not draw geometric figures with sticks in sandpits anymore. Things have evolved ever since.
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #6
Cantor080 said:
Of irrational number? Though yet not clear to me, it seems that we can give physical quantity of irrational length.

You cannot measure an irrational length because ultimately you get to quantum mechanical limits on the resolution of your ruler

the geometric objects that generate irrational or transcendental numbers like circles or right triangles are idealizations that don't exist in the physical world

but if you allow these idealizations then rotations around a unit circle encompass both the imaginary unit, pi and e
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #7
Cantor080 said:
If we have solution of an equation as x=1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 apple, 1 excess certain thing, etc. And, if we have solution of an equation as x=-1, it may be expressing, depending on context, 1 deficient apple, 1 deficient certain thing, etc. Is there any experience, similarly, for x=i?

There's a good series of videos starting here on the history and "reality" of imaginary numbers:

 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #8
BWV said:
You cannot measure an irrational length because ultimately you get to quantum mechanical limits on the resolution of your ruler
If you measure an object and obtain a rational result, what leads you to believe that the measured attribute had a rational value in the first place. Or even a well-defined value.
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #9
Every ‘true’ length is some number of whatever the appropriate quantum unit is (Planck length?) so you can’t have an irrational length because the length is some countable number of units
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #10
BWV said:
Every ‘true’ length is some number of whatever the appropriate quantum unit is (Planck length?) so you can’t have an irrational length because the length is some countable number of units
That is a commonly held, but incorrect belief. The Plank length is not a minimum length.
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #11
BWV said:
Every ‘true’ length is some number of whatever the appropriate quantum unit is (Planck length?) so you can’t have an irrational length because the length is some countable number of units

One problem with that argument is what happens with length contraction? If an object has a length ##L## in one reference frame, and you demand that its length be a rational number, then its length in another frame is ##L/\gamma##. And, it's difficult to demand that all gamma factors are rational numbers.

Lengths, therefore, in the sense of the mathematical model must be irrational. Lengths, in the sense of what you get if you measure something are limited by your experimental apparatus, which generally can only give one of a finite set of results. The raw numbers must be rational, but calcuated lengths, such as the distance if you have rational x and y coordinates can still be irrational (or even transendental).

A good example from QM is the energy levels of a finite square well, which are the solutions of a transendental equation: effectively ##z = \tan z##.
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080 and BWV
  • #12
BWV said:
Every ‘true’ length is some number of whatever the appropriate quantum unit is (Planck length?) so you can’t have an irrational length because the length is some countable number of units

another problem: algebraic numbers are countable.
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #13
fresh_42 said:
They even called it not rational, same as we use imaginary.
I think this is confusing becuase of the multiple meanings of 'rational' and the correlation of imaginary and 'not real' in the English Language. In particular, 'irrational' and 'imaginary' have similar meanings in a sense which is entirely coincidental to their mathematical meanings and the etymology of these.

To be clear, when the Greeks called a number 'not rational' they meant that it 'cannnot be expressed by a ratio'. They did not mean that it is 'weird', or illogical. When we call a number 'imaginary' we mean that it 'cannot be expressed as a real number'. Again we don't mean that it is 'weird', or illogical - although in this case there is something weird about numbers with an imaginary part.

Or is this something that only I have been confused by?
 
  • Like
Likes Cantor080
  • #14
pbuk said:
I think this is confusing becuase of the multiple meanings of 'rational' and the correlation of imaginary and 'not real' in the English Language. In particular, 'irrational' and 'imaginary' have similar meanings in a sense which is entirely coincidental to their mathematical meanings and the etymology of these.
Not sure, whether this can be called a coincidence. One has to have a closer look at the original meaning, as ..
To be clear, when the Greeks called a number 'not rational' they meant that it 'cannnot be expressed by a ratio'. They did not mean that it is 'weird', or illogical.
Agreed.
When we call a number 'imaginary' we mean that it 'cannot be expressed as a real number'. Again we don't mean that it is 'weird', or illogical ...
Agreed.
... - although in this case there is something weird about numbers with an imaginary part.
Not to me, I mean, the weirdness. The numbers themselves are completely natural to me. It is a simple field extension necessary to solve an equation. Weird are theorems like Liouville's or Cauchy's, or the branching of functions.
Or is this something that only I have been confused by?
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk and Cantor080
  • #15
BWV said:
One cannot have physical quantity of an irrational number either, only rational numbers can be counted
But √2, for instance, can easily be visualised as the length of the diagonal of the unit square. Such a visualisation for imaginary (or complex) numbers is not so easy - when you map complex numbers to the plane, you are creating an analogy, not a visualisation.
 
  • Like
Likes fresh_42 and Cantor080
  • #16
But a unit square is an idealization that does not exist in the physical world any more than the imaginary plane

Most all math concepts are abstractions to some degree
 
  • #17
To answer the original question, I've spent much of my professional life working with communications signals, which are frequently described in terms of complex numbers. Relative to the carrier wave (a sine wave at the broadcast frequency), at any given time the signal has a magnitude and phase. There is usually circuitry to measure the real and imaginary components of that signal. They have real physical meaning. You can encode completely different information in the real part and imaginary part at the transmit end and recover it at the receive end.

Of course, the underlying signal is made of electric and magnetic fields which are real-valued. The "imaginary part" could also be represented as the cosine terms in a real-valued Fourier series and the "real part" as the sine terms. But it is far more common to represent the two orthogonal information streams as a complex number.

So the short answer to the original question of "does ##x = i## have a physical meaning" in the communications context is yes, it means a signal which is 90 degrees out of phase with the carrier wave.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes pbuk, Cantor080 and fresh_42

What is the "Existence of experience related to i"?

The "Existence of experience related to i" refers to the philosophical question of whether our subjective experiences, such as thoughts, emotions, and sensations, are real and actually exist in some form outside of our own minds.

How is the "Existence of experience related to i" related to consciousness?

The concept of the "Existence of experience related to i" is closely tied to the concept of consciousness, as both involve the subjective experience of the individual. The question of whether our experiences are real and external or simply a product of our own minds is a fundamental aspect of the study of consciousness.

What evidence supports the "Existence of experience related to i"?

There is no definitive evidence that conclusively proves the "Existence of experience related to i." However, many philosophers and scientists argue that our subjective experiences are real and external because they are consistent, coherent, and shared by others. Additionally, advancements in neuroscience have provided some evidence that our experiences are linked to physical processes in the brain.

How does the "Existence of experience related to i" relate to the mind-body problem?

The "Existence of experience related to i" is closely intertwined with the mind-body problem, which seeks to understand the relationship between the mind (consciousness) and the body (physical processes). If our experiences are real and external, it may suggest that the mind and body are distinct entities rather than being one and the same.

What are the implications of the "Existence of experience related to i" for our understanding of reality?

If our experiences are real and external, it challenges traditional views of reality as solely being composed of physical matter. It also raises questions about the nature of perception and how we can truly know what is real. Additionally, it has implications for fields such as ethics and morality, as the existence of subjective experiences may suggest that our actions have consequences beyond the physical world.

Similar threads

  • General Math
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
492
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
966
Replies
4
Views
253
  • General Math
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Math
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top