• Register
PhysicsOverflow is a next-generation academic platform for physicists and astronomers, including a community peer review system and a postgraduate-level discussion forum analogous to MathOverflow.

Welcome to PhysicsOverflow! PhysicsOverflow is an open platform for community peer review and graduate-level Physics discussion.

Please help promote PhysicsOverflow ads elsewhere if you like it.


New printer friendly PO pages!

Migration to Bielefeld University was successful!

Please vote for this year's PhysicsOverflow ads!

Please do help out in categorising submissions. Submit a paper to PhysicsOverflow!

... see more

Tools for paper authors

Submit paper
Claim Paper Authorship

Tools for SE users

Search User
Reclaim SE Account
Request Account Merger
Nativise imported posts
Claim post (deleted users)
Import SE post

Users whose questions have been imported from Physics Stack Exchange, Theoretical Physics Stack Exchange, or any other Stack Exchange site are kindly requested to reclaim their account and not to register as a new user.

Public \(\beta\) tools

Report a bug with a feature
Request a new functionality
404 page design
Send feedback


(propose a free ad)

Site Statistics

180 submissions , 140 unreviewed
4,534 questions , 1,819 unanswered
5,159 answers , 21,956 comments
1,470 users with positive rep
720 active unimported users
More ...

  Physical meaning of the addition of Re[z] and Im[z], given Re[z] and Im[z] satisfy KK relation.

+ 0 like - 0 dislike

Recently I came into an expression of Re[z] + Im[z], where, Re[z] and Im[z] satisfy the Kramers–Kronig relations. Wiki shows a page explaining like this, but the real part and imaginary part are separate. I'm just wondering if there is anyone who ever came across an expression like Re[z] + Im[z]. Any comment is appreciated.

asked Jan 4, 2017 in Theoretical Physics by chen (0 points) [ revision history ]
edited Jan 10, 2017 by chen

It must be a typo; the imaginary unit $i$ is missing at Im(z).

Can you give a reference to where this happend?

@Dilaton, @VladimirKalitvianski, thanks very much for your comments.

No, there is no missing i here.

It's just a hypothesis from a combination of several articles. For example, please refer to figure 1 in this one and equation 2.3 in this one.

Your answer

Please use answers only to (at least partly) answer questions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead.
To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL.
Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post.
This is the answer box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button.
Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview
Your name to display (optional):
Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications.
Anti-spam verification:
If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:
Then drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds).
To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.

user contributions licensed under cc by-sa 3.0 with attribution required

Your rights