Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Sabine Hossenfelder asks, Do complex numbers exist?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Complex numbers have a real component, say 6, and an imaginary component, say √-1. So it is 6+√-1. In a recent math flap, someone claimed that complex numbers don’t really exist and others claim, yes, they do.

Sabine Hossenfelder thinks they do exist, at least for quantum physics. Discussing the “yes, they do” camp, she explains:

The question which they look at in the new paper is then whether there are ways to entangle particles in the normal, complex quantum mechanics that you cannot build up from particles that are described entirely by real valued functions. Previous calculation showed that this could always be done if the particles came from a single source. But in the new paper they look at particles from two independent sources, and claim that there are cases which you cannot reproduce with real numbers only. They also propose a way to experimentally measure this specific entanglement.

I have to warn you that this paper has not yet been peer reviewed, so maybe someone finds a flaw in their proof. But assuming their result holds up, this means if the experiment which they propose finds the specific entanglement predicted by complex quantum mechanics, then you know you can’t describe observations with real numbers. It would then be fair to say that complex numbers exist. So, this is why it’s cool. They’ve figured out a way to experimentally test if complex numbers exist!

Sabine Hossenfelder, “Do Complex Numbers Exist?” at BackRe(Action)

But, she warns, if they are right,

This conclusion only applies if you want the purely real-valued theory to work the same way as normal quantum mechanics. If you are willing to alter quantum mechanics, so that it becomes even more non-local than it already is, then you can still create the necessary entanglement with real valued numbers.

Sabine Hossenfelder, “Do Complex Numbers Exist?” at BackRe(Action)

The people who don’t think complex numbers really exist would probably not be happy with quantum mechanics being even more non-local without them. But of course, if complex numbers really do exist, then immaterial things really exist. Not a good time to be a hard core materialist.

Comments
PS: Did you notice how you chose to state the Euler identity in a form that is quite unusual? That's a clue on your other complaint. There is no more specifically mathematical content in adding 1 to lhs and rhs, 0 = 1 + e^i*pi However, this draws out an infinitely precise integration of five key numbers and linked operations, involving significant domains. That is, it opens up insights that the form you gave does not. That also happens when one moves from f' to dy/dx.kairosfocus
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT
JVL, I do NOT have in mind people as sophisticated as you are. I do have vividly in mind my 6th form classmate who threatened to study Math to expose the cheat involved in such dubious novelties. Had the rotating vectors approach been taken, I think this would not have been a problem. I think the very term imaginary is itself part of the problem. Seeing numbers with directions as vectors and introducing a second dimension through rotation makes things a lot easier. There was no similar eruption when ijk vectors were introduced. The Q-word* was not said, very wisely, methinks. KF *Quaternions.kairosfocus
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
Ditto, JVL. Anyone who has studied complex numbers knows that representing them as 2-d vectors in the complex plane is one of the neat things about them. Also writing them in the form e^(ix). KF seems to see significances sometimes that he somehow thinks others are missing. (Or in the case of e^(i*pi) = -1, avoiding for ideological reasons.)Viola Lee
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
Kairosfocus: JVl, complex numbers are 2-d vectors represented algebraically. The rotation operator approach demystifies. That's one use/interpretation. I'm not mystified, are you? You always seem to assume the rest of us don't quite 'get it' when we do.JVL
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
JVl, complex numbers are 2-d vectors represented algebraically. The rotation operator approach demystifies. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
I remember well that I felt very clear-headed that day, and that I got fairly immediate understandings of the problems. It was fun.Viola Lee
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
Viola Lee: Out of 800, my GRE’s were 790 in both math and verbal. Impressive! My memory of the maths GRE is that it was pretty nasty. Not Putnam level nasty but not something I wanted to repeat. At my university we did zero prep for it; they just wanted us to take it. Partially I think that way they could weed out people from dubious undergraduate programmes.JVL
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
Jerry: Have no idea. It was in a thick book called Analysis. I believe the proper name of the theorem was the Central Limit Theorem. Not sure, it’s been awhile. Since have lost the book. Analysis is the area of mathematics that includes Calculus. The Central Limit theorem is a slightly different animal than the so called Law of Large Numbers. I found it ironic that a year after I took the GRE exam and couldn’t answer any questions on statistics, I was able to prove a major theorem in the topic I had avoided. Actually, statistics sits on a bed of calculus/analysis so I don't think it's incredibly ironic. The 400-level stats course I took was all calculus. Later took several statistics courses. And recommend that this be taught in high school instead of calculus. In fact, many US community colleges started allowing basic level stats classes instead of algebra for meeting their minimum math requirement. It certainly is more useful for most people than algebra. I discussed it with a world renown number theorist and he agreed. Do you remember their name? Just curious. This and other discussion came out of asserting imaginary things as real. First, infinity and here imaginary numbers. But . . . are imaginary numbers really IMAGINARY? We think so because we've been taught that the product of two positives is positive, the product of two negatives is positive and the product of a positive and a negative is negative. Therefore, you can't have the square root of a negative. BUT . . . it's all a matter of definition isn't it? Long time ago -1 was considered less than -100. Really. And, if you look at their magnitudes that is correct. Imaginary/complex numbers are useful, can be used to model real world things, follow set rules, etc. Just like real numbers.JVL
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
I’m not sure knowing how to prove a theorem by heart is a strong indicator of “knowing math”
Who said it was?
Pretty sure you’re wrong about statistics!
What am I wrong about?
I’m also pretty sure your position on the philosophy of numbers is not common in the philosophy of math.
What’s wrong with it? I discussed it with a world renown number theorist and he agreed. It is basic common sense. Doesn’t undermine anything in math. This and other discussion came out of asserting imaginary things as real. First, infinity and here imaginary numbers.jerry
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT
Jerry, As this will show https://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/forrestarmstrong.pdf there is a significant philosophical debate and the typical view of practitioners is mathematical platonism which is not the same as Plato's views. What I have raised in the already linked, is that we can see that once a distinct world exists, it structurally embeds the characteristic that there is distinction so we can see an empty partition say W = {A|~A} where we got to W from near neighbour W' by augmenting it with some distinct thing A. So, W = {A|W'}, where A is a simple unit and W' a complex one generally speaking. We have a diversity of units, so we have duality too: the QUANTITIES denoted by 0, 1, 2 are present automatically. By von Neumann, we have the onward succession, so N. From N we have Z by additive inverses, x + (-x) = 0. Ratios of integers in Z give Q, thence R, C, R* etc. These are quantities with structural relationships, e.g. integers and reals, complexes are vectors. That is the sense in which I have noted that we have here universally present structures and quantities antecedent to names for same and organised study of same. I call these as abstract, existing entities embedded in any distinct possible world. We may then proceed to recognise and study. That is the sense in which I see a dual definition of math: [the study of] the logic of structure and quantity, adapting prof Neiderreiter. The study is culturally framed, but certain core structures and quantities are embedded in what it takes to have any distinct possible world. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT
re Jerry at 29. Out of 800, my GRE's were 790 in both math and verbal. I'm not sure knowing how to prove a theorem by heart is a strong indicator of "knowing math". Pretty sure you're wrong about statistics! :-) I'm also pretty sure your position on the philosophy of numbers is not common in the philosophy of math.Viola Lee
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
which version: strong or weak?
Have no idea. It was in a thick book called Analysis. I believe the proper name of the theorem was the Central Limit Theorem. Not sure, it’s been awhile. Since have lost the book. I found it ironic that a year after I took the GRE exam and couldn’t answer any questions on statistics, I was able to prove a major theorem in the topic I had avoided. Later took several statistics courses. And recommend that this be taught in high school instead of calculus.jerry
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
Jerry: Aside: at Duke I knew how to prove by heart the theorem referred to as the Law of Large Numbers, the basis for statistics. That's interesting . . . which version: strong or weak?JVL
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
07:49 AM
7
07
49
AM
PDT
what level of college math did you have, or have you studied otherwise?
I had almost the equivalent of a masters degree when I graduated from college having taken graduate level courses at U of Pennsylvania while an undergraduate at another college in Philadelphia area. This enabled me to get a perfect score on math GRE. Actually I got 72 of 75 correct. Did not answer 3 questions on statistics as we were told to leave questions blank we did not know since a wrong answer subtracted from you score. I had arrogantly avoided statistics since I didn’t consider it math. I had no idea what a mean or standard deviation was. I then spent a year at Duke University on a fellowship. I left to go into the Navy for a more interesting life experience. (I actually did see the world, at least 5 continents while in Navy). I couldn’t see myself spending the rest of my life with the type of people I found in high level math. In college I wrote a paper titled “What is a number?” This was for a philosophy course. That is the basis of my point of view which I later confirmed with other math professors, one a world expert on Number Theory. So in no way do I denigrate math or it’s usefulness. Aside: at Duke I knew how to prove by heart the theorem referred to as the Law of Large Numbers, the basis for statistics.jerry
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Jerry writes, "But the math constructs are only in your head not in the real world." Yes, and the natural numbers are also. Yes, they are built from our experience of individual items, just as our concept of line is built from a stretched string. I agree that all of math consists of concepts. But I don't agree the counting numbers are fundamentally different in that regard just because they are one the foundational concepts.Viola Lee
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
06:53 AM
6
06
53
AM
PDT
Hmmm. I'm curious, Jerry. You might be right, but what level of college math did you have, or have you studied otherwise? Differential equations? Algebraic theory? Non-euclidean geometry? Fractals and chaos theory? The history of math?Viola Lee
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT
Jerry: I probably at one time knew more about math than anyone on this site. Which parts did you study? Discrete? Continuous? It will show up as a smaller real number. Hmmmm . . . 2.5 is a real number and it has fractional components . . .JVL
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
where fractions naturally emerge in pivotal contexts
In your mind. In the real wot;d. It will show up as a smaller real number.jerry
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT
Jerry, I showed cases where fractions naturally emerge in pivotal contexts. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Clearly, we speak in terms of wholes and fractions, but is this merely a notion we impose?
Yes, it is a notion we impose. Don’t you read anything I say. I probably at one time knew more about math than anyone on this site. Not now, since I haven’t studied it in years. But I understand the usefulness of it and that usefulness has been life changing for the world. You confuse it’s usefulness with the reality of what it is. But the math constructs are only in your head not in the real world. They most definitely have application to the real world. But yet you write paragraphs and paragraphs that are irrelevant. The real world consists only of individual entities. So a half is just a way of enumerating a smaller number of these entities. Extremely useful. So all your equations are irrelevant. All your examples of geometric figures are irrelevant. None actually exist in the real world. Yes shapes resembling them exists and the logic of math in your mind help tremendously with their use. There are no circles, there are no lines. There is no pi. There are no angles. There are objects, the accumulation of zillions of microscopic entities that we manipulate to look perfect to the eye. We then talk about the precision of these objects. But all are imperfect when looked at finely. This imperfection does stop the object from being extremely useful. They are only in your mind. You apparently are confusing a desired result in the real world with a mental construct that helps achieve that result. We live in a discontinuous world. The mathematics you keep on bringing up assumes a continuous one. Let’s not get Into whether your mental images are real or not. They are real. But like the weightless elephant or frictionless surface or science fiction character they do not have exact real world counterparts. Even the positive numbers that enumerate individual entities are essentially mental constructs expressing relationships between sets of separate entities.jerry
March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
PS: Ponder what is required to cut a gear with a natural, counting number of even, evenly meshing teeth on a circular disk of metal, given that c = 2 * pi * r for a circle. Of course, this then extends to a gear train. Gears, of course, are at the heart of power trains. Irrationals lie in the heart of technology.kairosfocus
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT
Jerry,
The idea of a half is a mental construct. A positive number is a mental construct too that shows a relationship between one set of entities and another set.
Clearly, we speak in terms of wholes and fractions, but is this merely a notion we impose? Why would it have any utility? Ponder a parallelogram on a base b, with height h. Run verticals from the base to the level of the top. Notice how congruent triangles appear, so that if we slice off from one end we can move to the other to form a rectangle. This rectangle of dimensions b * h, patently, has area equal to the area of the parallelogram. This shows a natural context in which equality appears. Ask any tiler. Next, go back to the parm. Cut it in half along a diagonal. This demonstrates how the area of a triangle must be 1/2 * b * h. As a close corollary, any triangle can be doubled into a parm by producing parallels to two adjacent sides on the opposite vertex, to construct a congruent triangle with the third side as common diagonal. Half-ness here appears as a necessary and embedded feature of the world. Indeed, any possible world will have such an abstract plane associated, once we go from N to Z,Q,R,C. For C, the j* rotation operation suffices to generate the plane and a coordinate system, just relabel as x and y axes. Similarly, stretch out, peg then fold a rope in two. Naturally, we see a half of a continuum, which can be then put in our plane. Similarly, for simple uniformly accelerated kinematics, construct a graph with time as horizontal axis, t, initial velocity u, onward velocity v, with velocities on the vertical axis. Let initial time be zero. Produce, again, a line from u at t = 0 to the vertical line at some given t, where velocity is v. We see that the area under velocity vs time is a triangle on top of a rectangle of area u * t. The area of the whole can be readily shown to be average velocity (u + v)/2 times t. From this we get that v^2 = u^2 + 2*a*x. We already saw the halving in the average. But there is something much deeper here, if we introduce mass, recognise NL2 that F = m*a, and rearrange: m *[ 2ax] = m*[v^2 - u^2] Regrouping LHS, 2* [ma]*x = m*[v^2 - u^2], or, 2* F*x = m*[v^2 - u^2] Again, we can reduce: F*x = 1/2*m*[v^2 - u^2] F*x is the work by force F moving its application point along its direction, through displacement x. This is equal to the change in something measured by halving m*v^2, a term once known as vis viva To see what this is about, simply set u = 0, so we set initial value to at rest.. Of course 1/2*m*v^2 is now known as kinetic energy, the energy of translational motion. This is a key initial glance at a major principle of physics, energy and its conservation. Notice, 1/2 appears there, naturally. And, connected to tiling. All of this shows us that Q is naturally present in any possible world. Beyond Q, we can see that any r in R is the sum of a whole number part and a fractional part. For a rational, and with a decimal, binary or similar place value system, we have a repeating cycle beyond a certain point [which may be zero] as we see from long division. For an irrational, the cycle never occurs, i.e. we are at the surreal construction of R in w steps, i.e. convergent power series of fractional parts to get pi, e, sqrt2, most logs, etc. From R mileposted by N, we readily see C, R* etc. We are back to, a core of math -- structure, quantities, sets and relationships, is embedded in any possible world as part of its framework tracing to its distinct identity. This is the root of Wigner's wonder. KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
11:48 PM
11
11
48
PM
PDT
Hammers, drills, saws etc. are tools. They can be used to achieve objectives. So are mathematical methods and constants. Without them it would be impossible or very difficult to do many things eg. send a spacecraft to Mars. Therefore mathematical methods and constants, and other abstractions, exist in a meaningful sense. It's just a somewhat different sense than that of physical object tools.Ralph Dave Westfall
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT
You mean I can’t have 3.5 bags of sugar?
Nope. A half bag is a different entity from a whole bag. And each bag is essentially a large number of individual sugar molecules. What is called a half bag is a smaller number of sugar molecules. But the concept is very useful for living. I’m not denying that. So is calculus and geometry and all mathematics. Our modern world is built using these ideas. But the actual world is not continuous. The idea of a half is a mental construct. A positive number is a mental construct too that shows a relationship between one set of entities and another set. This same discussion was part of another thread in recent months. I’ll see if I can find it. Also the discussion included imaginary numbers.jerry
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Jerry: The only numbers that exist in our universe are positive integers that enumerate individual entities. You mean I can't have 3.5 bags of sugar?Concealed Citizen
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PDT
F/N: The rotating vectors view removes the needless mystification. take some x on the horizontal axis, a vector runs from origin O>x. Let an operator j*() rotate O>x through a right angle anticlockwise, up the vertical or Y axis. Apply J*() again, we have a further rotation yielding O>-x, so j*(j*((x)) = -x, or simplifying, j*j*x = - x, We then transfer j*^2 = -1. Simplify again j^2 = -1. So, j is "obviously" sqrt(-1). KFkairosfocus
March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
12:59 AM
12
12
59
AM
PDT
Rabbit hole was probably not an apt metaphor. Tangent might have been better.Viola Lee
March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT
Well VL, I don't comment to please your whims about what and how I should comment. I expect you feel pretty much the exact same way about my whims about what and how you comment. Let's try to keep that mutual respect shall we? As to my supposedly "anti-naturalist rabbit hole” that you have denigrated my comment with twice now, since that 'rabbit hole' analogy reflects a "Alice in Wonderland' fantasy land, perhaps you can tell me exactly why the real imaginary 'rabbit hole' actually lies with naturalism itself and not with my Christian conception of nature?? and thus why you chose to use that false fantasy land analogy on my comment instead of using it on naturalism itself where it rightfully belongs? After all, naturalism is the dominate philosophy in science, and on college campuses, today.,,, It is not as if my comment is completely irrelevant to science and society at large. to repeat,
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
It is certainly not much of a stretch, (if any stretch at all), for me to note that the rabbit hole in "Alice in Wonderland' has more going for it that is real than naturalism has going for it that is real. In other words, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT
I see, BA, although that is sort of what I meant by saying that your post was a "self-motivated anti-naturalist rabbit hole." It wasn't in response to this conversation or even the OP.Viola Lee
March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT
There have been discussions about numbers before very recently. The only numbers that exist in our universe are positive integers that enumerate individual entities. All else are mental constructs. They are extremely useful for making our lives better but don’t represent anything real. No real numbers. No rational numbers, no negative numbers, no zero. No infinity. Just positive integers. No lines let alone straight lines, no geometric shapes, no angles, And definitely no imaginary numbers.jerry
March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply