Reference Request: Split-Complex Numbers

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the need for a comprehensive reference on split-complex numbers, particularly one that also addresses dual numbers and their connections to special relativity and Minkowski 4-space. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding the geometry of the plane through split-complex numbers while cautioning against the misuse of complex numbers in special relativity. The conversation highlights the confusion surrounding the application of imaginary time coordinates in relativistic contexts, particularly in relation to general relativity and quantum field theory (QFT).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of split-complex numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with dual numbers and their applications
  • Knowledge of special relativity and Minkowski space
  • Basic concepts of quantum field theory (QFT)
NEXT STEPS
  • Research books specifically covering split-complex numbers and their geometric interpretations
  • Explore the relationship between dual numbers and split-complex numbers
  • Study the implications of Minkowski 4-space in special relativity
  • Investigate the use of imaginary time coordinates in quantum field theory, particularly in the Matsubara formalism
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students interested in advanced topics such as split-complex numbers, special relativity, and quantum field theory will benefit from this discussion.

sph3rical
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
What's a good book on split-complex numbers?

If it also covers dual numbers or the relation between split-complex numbers and special relativity or Minkowski 4-space or some analysis of split-complex numbers then all the better, but that's just gravy. I really just want a good reference for the geometry of the plane as expressed via split-complex numbers.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
What are "split-complex numbers"? I've never heard about this. For sure, you should not use complex numbers in special relativity (except for complex valued fields like the charged Klein-Gordon or the Dirac field). The idea to use an imaginary time coordinate to let the Minkowski product formally look like a Euclidean scalar product is not very good. It's very confusing, particularly when you want to learn general relativity, where this bad trick doesn't work anymore. Also in relativistic QFT, at one place you really might switch to Euclidean QFT by a Wick rotation, and then you really deal with an imaginary-time formalism. The same is possible for QFT at finite temperature (Matsubara formalism), but you should use the imaginary time coordinates only at these places where they make real physical sense!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K