Generalized uncertainty principle

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the generalized uncertainty principle, specifically addressing the inequality [Re(z)]^2 + [Im(z)]^2 ≥ [Im(z)]^2 for complex numbers. Participants clarify that the real part can be disregarded because the sum of the squares of the real and imaginary components yields a value that is always greater than or equal to the square of the imaginary component alone. This is due to the properties of real numbers, where squaring results in non-negative values, confirming that the magnitude of a complex number is indeed greater than its imaginary part.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with the concept of inequalities in mathematics
  • Knowledge of the generalized uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics
  • Basic grasp of real and imaginary components of complex numbers
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the mathematical foundations of the generalized uncertainty principle
  • Explore the properties of complex numbers in depth
  • Learn about inequalities and their applications in mathematical proofs
  • Investigate the implications of the generalized uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Students of quantum mechanics, mathematicians, and physicists interested in the foundations of uncertainty principles and complex number analysis.

usphys
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
So I'm working on the proof of the generalized uncertainty principle and there is a step that I'm not fully understanding. There is a line were it says that for any complex number we can write the inequality as [Re(z)]^2 + [Im(z)]^2 >/ [Im(z)]^2. why are we able to get rid of the real part on the left hand side?


Does this have anything to do with the magnitude being greater than the magnitude of the imaginary part?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Both \text{Re}[z] and \text{Im}[z] are real numbers. When you square them you will get positive numbers (or zero). When you add two positive numbers together, you definitely get a number that is larger than either of the two.
 
is it correct to assume that there is an observable violation in removing the real part and that is why it is greater than or equal to just the imaginary?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K