• @monotrox@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Up to the introduction of quantum mechanics imaginary numbers where only ever a theoretical tool and any calculation in electromagnetism, mechanics or even relativity can be done without them.

      Also, any measurement you can make will always result in real numbers because there is no logical interpretation for imaginary measurements (a speed of 2+i m/s doesnt really make sense)

        • @monotrox@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          I said that any calculation in electrodynamics CAN be done without imaginary numbers, I never said that it would be the most common or convenient way of doing things.

          If you use a different form of solution to maxwells equations, electrical impedance can totally be expressed as just another real property. Fourier transform also is not necessary to solve maxwells equations or any other physical systems. It just might make it significantly easier and more convenient.

          Obviously imaginary numbers existed and where used way before quantum mechanics was a thing but they werent technically necessary in physics because they never appeared in the equations of fundamental theories (Maxwells equations, general relativity, newtonian mechanics)

      • ChaoticNeutralCzech
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        Imaginary numbers are indeed poorly named. They are not much more imaginary than members of ℝ.

          • ChaoticNeutralCzech
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Well, in AC circuits, having √3̅+√-̅1̅ A of current makes as much sense as having 2 amps with a 30° phase shift. It’s just easier notation for calculations - Cartesian coordinates for what would otherwise be polar.

            • @jarfil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              12 years ago

              That’s BS notation. If you want Cartesian, just use 3i+1j, no need for some impossible √-1 that you then redefine some operations for, just so it becomes orthogonal to R.

              • dyen49kOP
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                You might want to look up geometric algebra for a better geometric interpretation of complex numbers than the complex plane with a “real” and “imaginary” axis

              • ChaoticNeutralCzech
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                The nice thing about 𝑖 = √-̅1̅ is that you don’t need to redefine any operations for it, ℐ𝓂 is “automatically” orthogonal to ℛℯ.