4

Complex numbers are often used in Physics especially in Electrical Circuits to analyze them as they are easy to move around like phasors. They make the processes easy but it seems kind of amusing to use something which has no other real world analogous meaning to my knowledge being used to solve the most practical real world problems.

What other method were used prior to having developed complex numbers and why were they replaced? For example, can every problem where we use complex numbers also be done using other techniques such as matrices, how did the insight come to use such an obscure entity, or did doing the operations just seem easy with it?

Guy Inchbald
  • 7,372
  • Related: https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/11396/2451 , https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/75351/2451 and links therein. – Qmechanic Aug 03 '20 at 06:38
  • I added a section to my anwser, with a historical discussion specific to the following part of your question: "How did the insight come to use such an obscure entity?" I submit the case that In a very real sense the discovery came before the insight – Cleonis Aug 03 '20 at 16:38
  • Thanks @Cleonis I read your answer earlier and again with the updated and it was a real joy i must say – FoundABetterName Aug 03 '20 at 16:59
  • 1
    Please edit this question to narrow it down towards a single, objective question, as it currently asks several different questions at once. Also: Questions about historical developments are better suited for [hsm.SE]. Whether or not something is "amusing" is subjective and not a question about physics. – ACuriousMind Aug 03 '20 at 17:56
  • Understood besides I got my answer so should I still make edits @ACuriousMind – FoundABetterName Aug 03 '20 at 18:14
  • Depends on what you mean by "real-world" analog. $i$ is "just" a convenient notation for the basis vector $(0,1)$ in $R^2$. – chepner Aug 03 '20 at 18:21
  • I acknowledge that the question lacked focus, and stackexchange has strong guidelines in place, emphasizing the importance of focus. Given that this question has been closed I think I will delete my answer; possibly parts of the material can be reused in the future. (Also, I gave a version of history that I wanted/expected to be true, but it turns out that it isn't) – Cleonis Aug 03 '20 at 18:33
  • Oh no problem @Cleonis – FoundABetterName Aug 03 '20 at 19:03
  • I submitted a question on the history of physics and mathematics stackexchange, triggered by what I encountered when researching this question https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/12094/on-the-history-of-development-of-the-concept-of-complex-numbers – Cleonis Aug 03 '20 at 22:14
  • thanks for sharing this i'll surely follow it @Cleonis – FoundABetterName Aug 04 '20 at 00:02

4 Answers4

12

There is a natural sequence in mathematical reasoning, as follows:

  1. start with positive integers
  2. invent the notion of addition
  3. invent subtraction as the reverse of addition
  4. realise about here, or perhaps earlier, that zero is also a useful number
  5. after playing with subtraction for a while, invent negative integers
  6. invent multiplication as repeated addition, or as a good way to find the number of items in a simple rectangular array of items or in a collection of bags
  7. invent division as the reverse of multiplication
  8. invent rational numbers because they come up in division operations
  9. start to explore equations such as $x \times x = 2$ and realise that one also has numbers "in between" the rational numbers which can't be expressed as the ratio of finite integers, so they are called irrational
  10. also explore equations such as $x \times x = -2$ and realise that this can be written $x \times x = 2 \times (-1)$ so $x = \sqrt{2} \times \sqrt{-1}$. After playing with this for a while, invent the numbers we now call imaginary numbers, and by adding them to real numbers invent complex numbers.

So far the sequence of ideas is very natural. We just considered the four basic arithmetic operations (add, subtract, multiply, divide) and we were led very naturally to the complex numbers. What happens next is rather interesting. You can now write any equation you like, using just those four operations, and to solve the equation you don't need any new types of numbers. Complex numbers are sufficient. Thus there is a certain sense of completeness once one arrives at complex numbers. Also, as long as the natural world is described by mathematics then one can expect that these numbers are going to crop up all over the place in the analysis of situations in the natural world. As indeed they do---they are highly important and much used in almost all areas of science, not just in circuit theory. For example, anything involving a wave form can be conveniently expressed using $\exp(i(k x - \omega t))$ where $i = \sqrt{-1}$. It doesn't matter what type of wave it is. It could be water wave or a sound wave or a brain wave or a quantum wave or whatever.

Finally, a comment on the way mathematics goes next, after complex numbers. The next step is to introduce the idea of a new type of operation which is like multiplication but is not commutative. This comes up in matrix analysis and also in sequences of actions where the net result depends on the order in which the actions occur. An example is rotations about different axes in three dimensions. One can then invent further things such as vectors, and others which have such names as quaternions, spinors, fields, etc. These can be thought of either as collections of numbers, or as new types of numbers.

Andrew Steane
  • 58,183
  • start with a set of ${1,2,...,N}$, where $N<\infty$ is a small number, but sufficient for the simple tasks of counting real-life amounts of property (sheep, coconuts etc.). 1. Continue to the infinite set of positive integers.
  • – Ruslan Aug 03 '20 at 16:27
  • 3
    Also, point 10 seems like a giant leap: I don't think many people much before Cardano would consider such equations even meaningful, since $x^2$ is "obviously" never negative. It's the search for a general solution of cubic equations in radicals that made the imaginary (and thus, complex) numbers unavoidable. – Ruslan Aug 03 '20 at 16:33
  • @Ruslan Yes; thanks---I just upvoted your comment. The last one is a bit of a leap, as you say, but with the benefit of hindsight one can put in this simplified way, at least for the purpose of getting to the place where one has all the tools one needs for algebraic equations. – Andrew Steane Aug 03 '20 at 17:05
  • You've summed up the history of complex numbers, but OP asked, why are they useful? You came close to the answer when you said, "...anything involving a wave form..." Wave forms are related to periodic functions, Periodic functions are related to circular motion, and somewhere in your historical timeline, somebody noticed a trivial relationship between rotations of points around the origin of the complex plane and complex multiplication. All of the familiar algebra and notation from real arithmetic can be easily used to describe periodic functions (waves) if you drop-in complex numbers. – Solomon Slow Aug 03 '20 at 18:44
  • @SolomonSlow My answer is not so much a historical as a logical sequence, showing why complex numbers are to be expected and why they will find a central place in any science that deals in mathematical precision. – Andrew Steane Aug 03 '20 at 19:30
  • I don't understand. What does "precision" have to do with the choice of whether or not to use complex numbers? I don't presume to know what you meant by "science" in this context, but I could go on all day listing mathematical applications in which there would be no benefit from calculating with complex numbers. – Solomon Slow Aug 03 '20 at 21:54
  • @SolomonSlow re "precision", there's a big part of science, e.g. in biology, which consists of describing a process or a sequence of reactions or a structure, and the description need not invoke maths at all. By a "central part" I mean simply that complex numbers are not some sort of esoteric idea sometimes useful at the margins, but rather part of the central toolkit which may be employed at any moment if so desired. – Andrew Steane Aug 04 '20 at 09:02
  • OK, Sure, but FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision – Solomon Slow Aug 04 '20 at 11:55
  • It's interesting that you mentioned rotations. I remember years back when my professor told me that whenever you see a complex number used to describe some physical process, you can bet your bottom dollar there's a rotation in there somewhere. Or words to that effect. – John Duffield Aug 07 '20 at 07:43