Graduate Uncertainty Propagation of Complex Functions

Click For Summary
To perform standard error propagation for a function f(α, β, γ) involving complex numbers, one must consider both the real and imaginary components of the function. The discussion highlights that while coupled oscillators yield real physical results, the eigenvalues can still be complex, necessitating a careful approach to uncertainty calculation. It is suggested that using the real part, Re(f), may not always be appropriate, as some physical systems are more accurately described using complex numbers. The key focus should be on understanding the distribution of the complex number and the function itself. Ultimately, the uncertainty propagation in this context requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the nature of complex observables.
HermitianField
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Suppose I have some observables \alpha, \beta, \gamma whose central values and uncertainties \sigma_{\alpha}, \sigma_{\beta}, \sigma_{\gamma} are known.

Define a function f(\alpha, \beta, \gamma) which has both real and complex parts. How do I do standard error propagation when imaginary numbers are involved? This problem deals with the eigenvalues of a coupled oscillator. Here, some of the eigenvalue functions are complex, so I would like to know how to calculate the uncertainty on f, which is an eigenvalue. The claim is that since coupled oscillators are physical systems, their answers are real in nature. Thus, should I use Re(f) instead?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Some physical systems are better represented by complex numbers than real numbers. So simply being a physical system doesn't imply the measurement is a real number.

The better question is what is the distribution of the complex number and the function.
 
The standard _A " operator" maps a Null Hypothesis Ho into a decision set { Do not reject:=1 and reject :=0}. In this sense ( HA)_A , makes no sense. Since H0, HA aren't exhaustive, can we find an alternative operator, _A' , so that ( H_A)_A' makes sense? Isn't Pearson Neyman related to this? Hope I'm making sense. Edit: I was motivated by a superficial similarity of the idea with double transposition of matrices M, with ## (M^{T})^{T}=M##, and just wanted to see if it made sense to talk...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K