Question about derivatives of complex fields

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
2 replies · 1K views
Chronum
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07188.pdf

Equation 5 in this paper states that
$$\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i} = 2Re\left\lbrace\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right\rbrace$$

Here, [itex]p_i[/itex] stands for the [itex]i[/itex]'th element of a vector of 'design parameters' [itex]\mathbf{p}[/itex]. These design parameters are variables that we directly control.

Just after that equation, the paper states that the derivative of [itex]x[/itex], involves that 2*Re part because [itex]x[/itex] is complex. [itex]x[/itex] is a vector of complex E and H fields.

Now, my question is why is this? Why is the derivative of complex E and H fields, with respect to a certain parameter [itex]p_i[/itex] cause that extra factor of 2 in the front, and why do we only consider the real part?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Chronum said:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.07188.pdf

Equation 5 in this paper states that
$$\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i} = 2Re\left\lbrace\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right\rbrace$$

Here, [itex]p_i[/itex] stands for the [itex]i[/itex]'th element of a vector of 'design parameters' [itex]\mathbf{p}[/itex]. These design parameters are variables that we directly control.

Just after that equation, the paper states that the derivative of [itex]x[/itex], involves that 2*Re part because [itex]x[/itex] is complex. [itex]x[/itex] is a vector of complex E and H fields.

Now, my question is why is this? Why is the derivative of complex E and H fields, with respect to a certain parameter [itex]p_i[/itex] cause that extra factor of 2 in the front, and why do we only consider the real part?
There are a couple of things to unpack here. The first is the complex chain rule. If [itex]x(p_i),p_i\in\mathbb{C}[/itex] and [itex]F(x)[/itex] is likewise a complex-valued function, then
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial x^*}\frac{\partial x^*}{\partial p_i}[/tex] Next, suppose we have some complex-valued function [itex]z(t)=a(t)+ib(t)[/itex], where [itex]a,b\in\mathbb{R}[/itex]. Then
[tex]\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^*=\left(\frac{da}{dt}+i\frac{db}{dt}\right)^*=\frac{da}{dt}-i\frac{db}{dt}=\frac{dz^*}{dt}[/tex] and (if [itex]z[/itex] has a well-defined inverse)
[tex]\frac{dz}{dt^*}=\left(\frac{dt^*}{dz}\right)^{-1}=\left(\left(\frac{dt}{dz}\right)^*\right)^{-1}=\left(\left(\frac{dt}{dz}\right)^{-1}\right)^*=\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^*[/tex] Furthermore, [itex]z+z^*=(a+ib)+(a-ib)=2a=2\text{Re}(z)[/itex]
Putting all of this together,
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\right)^*\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)^*=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)^*=2\text{Re}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)[/tex] It's not the most rigorous treatment of the problem, but it should be more than enough to give you an idea of why this statement might be true.
 
Daniel Gallimore said:
There are a couple of things to unpack here. The first is the complex chain rule. If [itex]x(p_i),p_i\in\mathbb{C}[/itex] and [itex]F(x)[/itex] is likewise a complex-valued function, then
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial x^*}\frac{\partial x^*}{\partial p_i}[/tex] Next, suppose we have some complex-valued function [itex]z(t)=a(t)+ib(t)[/itex], where [itex]a,b\in\mathbb{R}[/itex]. Then
[tex]\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^*=\left(\frac{da}{dt}+i\frac{db}{dt}\right)^*=\frac{da}{dt}-i\frac{db}{dt}=\frac{dz^*}{dt}[/tex] and (if [itex]z[/itex] has a well-defined inverse)
[tex]\frac{dz}{dt^*}=\left(\frac{dt^*}{dz}\right)^{-1}=\left(\left(\frac{dt}{dz}\right)^*\right)^{-1}=\left(\left(\frac{dt}{dz}\right)^{-1}\right)^*=\left(\frac{dz}{dt}\right)^*[/tex] Furthermore, [itex]z+z^*=(a+ib)+(a-ib)=2a=2\text{Re}(z)[/itex]
Putting all of this together,
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial p_i}=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\right)^*\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)^*=\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)^*=2\text{Re}\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p_i}\right)[/tex] It's not the most rigorous treatment of the problem, but it should be more than enough to give you an idea of why this statement might be true.

This is in fact the same rule that the paper author mentioned (I emailed the first author). And then told me to look at Wirtinger derivatives. There are a few assumptions here, but those hold true in this case, and this step has since proceeded to make sense. Many thanks!