3 ms·

"And as imprecise as that sounds, many of the formulas that take complex numbers as inputs multiply them with other complex numbers in such a way that the imagi

"And as imprecise as that sounds, many of the formulas that take complex numbers as inputs multiply them with other complex numbers in such a way that the imaginary side cancels out. " The only thing imprecise about this is "many". Really any formula for an observable of any kind (including probabilities) has to come out to a real number.

computerfriend 4y ago
Not really! Often you get a complex solution and both the real and imaginary components are valid.
- nathan_compton 4y ago
  A complex solution can be valid but you never measure a complex number. I'd argue that in situations like using complex numbers to simulate time varying electrical activity the ontological status of the imaginary part of the solution is uncontroversial: the complex numbers in that situation have no ontological status at all and what is present is charges. In that case we're simply using the complex numbers as a convenient notation for a variable and its conjugate. In quantum mechanics one is more easily led to wonder about whether the ontological status of the complex numbers in that theory really can be settled so easily.
  - wadd1e 4y ago
    >A complex solution can be valid but you never measure a complex number. I see where you are coming from, and I'm asking this as a genuine question rather than to argue, but what's stopping me from measuring the length and the mass of an object and saying the "length-mass" of it is length + i(mass)? I suppose it isn't useful since complex numbers are not ordered, but aren't "numbers" arbitrary? In measure theory, measures are defined as outputting positive real numbers and +infinity because those happen to align with our intuition about how measures work, but as far as I know, maths(and physics here I guess) does not care about the representation of my quantity which I'm measuring, but it only cares about it's properties.
    - nathan_compton 4y ago
      Nothing stops you from representing the value that way, but when you go to a meter or lay a yardstick against something, you are measuring a real number (or, at the very least, a number which has no complex character to it). "This many ticks on a ruler" or "this many clicks on a clock."
    - Koshkin 4y ago
      Well, for one thing, for such quantity to make physical sense, both the real part and the imaginary part should be of the same dimension, e.g. "length." Also, the result of a measurement is supposed to come from (be an eigenvalue of) an observable - an operator, and, on the one hand, I think I'd have a hard time conjuring one up; on the other hand, the eigenvalues are "supposed to be" real anyway! So, no, that doesn't work.

computerfriend 4y ago

Not really! Often you get a complex solution and both the real and imaginary components are valid.

nathan_compton 4y ago
A complex solution can be valid but you never measure a complex number. I'd argue that in situations like using complex numbers to simulate time varying electrical activity the ontological status of the imaginary part of the solution is uncontroversial: the complex numbers in that situation have no ontological status at all and what is present is charges. In that case we're simply using the complex numbers as a convenient notation for a variable and its conjugate. In quantum mechanics one is more easily led to wonder about whether the ontological status of the complex numbers in that theory really can be settled so easily.
- wadd1e 4y ago
  >A complex solution can be valid but you never measure a complex number. I see where you are coming from, and I'm asking this as a genuine question rather than to argue, but what's stopping me from measuring the length and the mass of an object and saying the "length-mass" of it is length + i(mass)? I suppose it isn't useful since complex numbers are not ordered, but aren't "numbers" arbitrary? In measure theory, measures are defined as outputting positive real numbers and +infinity because those happen to align with our intuition about how measures work, but as far as I know, maths(and physics here I guess) does not care about the representation of my quantity which I'm measuring, but it only cares about it's properties.
  - nathan_compton 4y ago
    Nothing stops you from representing the value that way, but when you go to a meter or lay a yardstick against something, you are measuring a real number (or, at the very least, a number which has no complex character to it). "This many ticks on a ruler" or "this many clicks on a clock."
  - Koshkin 4y ago
    Well, for one thing, for such quantity to make physical sense, both the real part and the imaginary part should be of the same dimension, e.g. "length." Also, the result of a measurement is supposed to come from (be an eigenvalue of) an observable - an operator, and, on the one hand, I think I'd have a hard time conjuring one up; on the other hand, the eigenvalues are "supposed to be" real anyway! So, no, that doesn't work.