this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
386 points (97.3% liked)

Science Memes

11426 readers
1439 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 46 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Imaginary numbers always feel wrong

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I never really appreciated them until watching a bunch of 3blue1brown videos. I really wish those had been available when I was still in HS.

[–] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

After watching a lot of Numberphile and 3B1B videos I said to myself, you know what, I'm going back to college to get a maths degree. I switched at last moment to actuarial sciences when applying, because it's looked like a good professional move and was the best decision on my life.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago

After delving into quaternions, complex numbers feel simple and intuitive.

[–] affiliate@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

after you spend enough time with complex numbers, the real numbers start to feel wrong

[–] TeddE@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Can we all at least agree that counting numbers are a joke? Sometimes they start at zero … sometimes they start at one …

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] bitcrafter@programming.dev 7 points 1 month ago

If you are comfortable with negative numbers, then you are already comfortable with the idea that a number can be tagged with an extra bit of information that represents a rotation. Complex numbers just generalize the choices available to you from 0 degrees and 180 degrees to arbitrary angles.

[–] blackbrook@mander.xyz 45 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You need to add some disclaimer to this diagram like "not to scale"...

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 56 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's to scale.

Which scale is left as an exercise to the reader.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I really don't think it is.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Yeah, 1 and i should be the same size. It’s 1 in the real dimension and 1 in the imaginary dimension creating a 0 but anywhere you see this outside pure math it’s probably a sinusoid

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 month ago

I may not have been entirely serious

[–] puchaczyk@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is why a length of a vector on a complex plane is |z|=√(z×z). z is a complex conjugate of z.

[–] randy@lemmy.ca 18 points 1 month ago

I've noticed that, if an equation calls for a number squared, they usually really mean a number multiplied by its complex conjugate.

[–] drbluefall@toast.ooo 7 points 1 month ago

[ you may want to escape the characters in your comment... ]

[–] ornery_chemist@mander.xyz 34 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Isn't the squaring actually multiplication by the complex conjugate when working in the complex plane? i.e., √((1 - 0 i) (1 + 0 i) + (0 - i) (0 + i)) = √(1 + - i^2^) = √(1 + 1) = √2. I could be totally off base here and could be confusing with something else...

[–] diaphanous 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I think you're thinking of taking the absolute value squared, |z|^2 = z z*

[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

Considering we're trying to find lengths, shouldn't we be doing absolute value squared?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 29 points 1 month ago

It’s just dimensionally shifted. This is not only true, its truth is practical for electrical engineering purposes. Real and imaginary cartesians yay!

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This is pretty much the basis behind all math around electromagnetics (and probably other areas).

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Would you explain how, for a simpleton?

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The short version is: we use some weird abstractions (i.e., ways of representing complex things) to do math and make sense of things.

The longer version:

Electromagnetic signals are how we transmit data wirelessly. Everything from radio, to wifi, to xrays, to visible light are all made up of electromagnetic signals.

Electromagnetic waves are made up of two components: the electrical part, and the magnetic part. We model them mathematically by multiplying one part (the magnetic part, I think) by the constant i, which is defined as sqrt(-1). These are called "complex numbers", which means there is a "real" part and a "complex" (or "imaginary") part. They are often modeled as the diagram OP posted, in that they operate at "right angles" to each other, and this makes a lot of the math make sense. In reality, the way the waves propegate through the air doesn't look like that exactly, but it's how we do the math.

It's a bit like reading a description of a place, rather than seeing a photograph. Both can give you a mental image that approximates the real thing, but the description is more "abstract" in that the words themselves (i.e., squiggles on a page) don't resemble the real thing.

[–] A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Makes sense, thanks. More of a data transmission than an electrical power thing.

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah, it's about how electromagnetic energy travels through space.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 month ago

Circles are good at math, but what to do if you not have circle shape? Easy, redefine problem until you have numbers that look like the numbers the circle shape uses. Now we can use circle math on and solve problems about non-circles!

[–] diaphanous 3 points 1 month ago

Yes, relativity for example!

[–] BorgDrone@lemmy.one 17 points 1 month ago (2 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 15 points 1 month ago (4 children)

That's actually pretty easy. With CB being 0, C and B are the same point. Angle A, then, is 0, and the other two angles are undefined.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 month ago

No thank you

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Doesn't this also imply that i == 1 because CB has zero length, forcing AC and AB to be coincident? That sounds like a disproving contradiction to me.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think BAC is supposed to be defined as a right-angle, so that AB²+AC²=CB²

=> AB+1²=0²

=> AB = √-1

=> AB = i

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 month ago
[–] produnis@discuss.tchncs.de 13 points 1 month ago

Too complexe for me ;)

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 12 points 1 month ago

you are imagining things

[–] I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org 6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

The length would be equal to the absolute value

[–] mariusafa@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 month ago

What if not a Hilbert space?

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)
[–] Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago

Every now and then, I get a little bit lonely and you're never coming 'round

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›