Comment by ajkjk
8 days ago
> I doubt anyone could make a reply to this comment that would make me feel any better about it.
I am also a complex number skeptic. The position I've landed on is this.
1) complex numbers are probably used for far more purposes across math than they "ought" to be, because people don't have the toolbox to talk about geometry on R^2 but they do know C so they just use C. In particular, many of the interesting things about complex analysis are probably just the n=2 case of more general constructions that can be done by locating R inside of larger-dimensional algebras.
2) The C that shows up in quantum mechanics is likely an example of this--it's a case of physics having a a circular symmetry embedded in it (the phase of the wave functions) and everyone getting attached to their favorite way of writing it. (Ish. I'm not sure how the square the fact that wave functions add in superposition. but anyway it's not going to be like "physics NEEDS C", but rather, physics uses C because C models the algebra of the thing physics is describing.
3) C is definitely intrinsic in a certain sense: once you have polynomials in R, a natural thing to do is to add a sqrt(-1). This is not all that different conceptually from adding sqrt(2), and likely any aliens we ever run into will also have done the same thing.
> but anyway it's not going to be like "physics NEEDS C", but rather, physics uses C because C models the algebra of the thing physics is describing.
Maybe it’s just my math background shouting at me about what “model” means, but if object X models object Y, then I’m going to say that X is Y. It doesn’t matter how you write it. You can write it as R^2 if you want, but there’s some additional mathematical structure here and we can recognize it as C.
Mathematicians love to come up with different ways to write the same thing. Objects like R and C are recognized as a single “thing” even though you can come up with all sorts of different ways to conceive of them. The basic approach:
1. You come up with a set of axioms which describe C,
2. You find an example of an object which follows those rules,
3. That object “is” C in almost any sense we care about, and so is any other object following the same rules.
You can pretend that the complex numbers used in quantum mechanics are just R^2 with circular symmetries. That’s fine—but in order to play that game of pretend, you have to forget some of the axioms of complex numbers in order to get there.
Likewise, we can “forget” that vectors exist and write Maxwell’s equations in terms of separate x, y, and z variables. You end up with a lot more equations—20 equations instead of 4. Or you can go in the opposite direction and discover a new formalism, geometric algebra, and rewrite Maxwell’s equation as a single equation over multivectors. (Fewer equations doesn’t mean better, I just want to describe the concept of forgetting structure in mathematics.)
You can play similar games with tensors. Does physics really use tensors, or just things that happen to transform like tensors? Well, it doesn’t matter. Anything that transforms like a tensor is actually a tensor. And anything that has the algebraic properties of C is, itself, C.
> if object X models object Y, then I’m going to say that X is Y
If you haven't read to the end of the post, you might be interested in the philosophical discussion it builds to. The idea there, which I ascribe to, is not quite the same as what you are saying, but related in a way, namely, that in the case that X models Y, the mathematician is only concerned with the structure that is isomorphic between them. But on the other hand, I think following "therefore X is Y" to its logical conclusion will lead you to commit to things you don't really believe.
> But on the other hand, I think following "therefore X is Y" to its logical conclusion will lead you to commit to things you don't really believe.
I would love to hear an example… but before you do, I’m going to clarify that my statement was expressing a notion of what “is” sometimes means to a mathematician, and caution that
1. This notion is contextual, that sometimes we use the word “is” differently, and
2. It requires an understanding of “forgetfulness”.
So if I say that “Cauchy sequences in Q is R” and “Dedekind cuts is R”, you have to forget the structure not implied by R. In a set-theoretic sense, the two constructions are unequal, because you use constructed different sets.
I think this weird notion of “is” is the only sane way to talk about math. YMMV.
2 replies →
Tensor are much less unequivocal to me. They seem to follow naturally from basic geometric considerations. C on the other hand is definitely i there but I'm not sure it's the best way to write or conceptualize what it's doing.
*much more, oops
I think the issue with "modeling" is really a human one, not a mathematical one.
It's helpful sometimes to think of our collective body of mathematical knowledge as like a "codebase", and our notations and concepts as the "interface" to the abstractions at play within. Any software engineer would immediately acknowledge that some interfaces are FAR better than others.
The complex numbers numbers are one interface to the thing they model, and as you say, in a certain sense, it may be the case that the thing is C. But other interfaces exist: 2x2 antisymmetric traceless matrices, or a certain bivector in the geometric-algebra sense.
Different interfaces: a) suggest different extensions, b) interface with other abstractions more or less naturally, c) lend themselves to different physical interpretations d) compress the "real" information of the abstraction to different degrees.
An example of (a): when we first learn about electric and magnetic fields we treat them both as the "same kind of thing"—vector fields—only to later find they are not (B is better thought of as bivector field, or better still, both are certain components of dA). The first hint is their different properties under reflections and rotations. "E and B are both vector fields" is certainly an abstraction you CAN use, but it is poorly-matched to the underlying abstraction and winds up with a bunch of extra epicycles.
Of (d): you could of course write all of quantum mechanics with `i` replaced by a 2x2 rotation matrix. (This might be "matrix mechanics", I'm not sure?) This gives you many more d.o.f. than you need, and a SWE-minded person would come in and say: ah, see, you should make invalid states unrepresentable. Here, use this: `i = (0 -1; 1 0)`. An improvement!
Of (b): the Pauli matrices, used for spin-1/2 two-state systems, represent the quaternions. Yet here we don't limit ourselves to `{1, i, j, k}`; we prefer a 2-state representation—why? Because (IIRC) the 2 states emerge intuitively from the physical problems which lead to 2-state systems; because the 2 states mix in other reference frames; things like that (I can't really remember). Who's to say something similar doesn't happen with the 2 states of the phase `i`, but that it's obscured by our abstraction? (Probably it isn't, but, prove it!)
I have not given it much more thought than this, but, I find that this line of thinking places the "discontent with the complex numbers in physics" a number of people in this thread attest to in a productive light. That dissatisfaction is with the interface of the abstraction: why? Where was the friction? In what way does it feel unnecessarily mystifying, or unparsimonious?
Of course, the hope is that something physical is obscured by the abstraction: that we learn something new by viewing the problem in another frame, and might realize, say, that the interface we supposed to be universally applicable actually ceases to work in some interesting case, and turns out to explain something new.
I can't entirely follow the details, but apparently quantum mechanics actually doesn't work for fields other than C, including quaternions. https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=4021
That makes sense, but it assumes that the thing you would replace C with is a field. If physics' C is sitting inside a larger space I imagine that that space will not be a field (probably a lie group or something instead).
> The C that shows up in quantum mechanics is likely an example of this--it's a case of physics having a a circular symmetry embedded in it (the phase of the wave functions) and everyone getting attached to their favorite way of writing it
No, it really is C, not R^2. Consider product spaces, for example. C^2 ⊗ C^2 is C^4 = R^8, but R^4 ⊗ R^4 is R^16 - twice as large. So you get a ton of extra degrees of freedom with no physical meaning. You can quotient them out identifying physically equivalent states - but this is just the ordinary construction of the complex numbers as R^2/(x^2 + 1).
> but rather, physics uses C because C models the algebra of the thing physics is describing.
That's what C is: R^2, with extra algebraic structure.
Yes I know and agree with that. But still I think physics can be described with either. There will, I expect be a physical meaning to that quotient. Maybe the larger space without the quotient is also physically meaningful too.