I am the only one of my generation privy to my gramma’s legendary mashed potato recipe. No one knows this. If I used my real name on Bsky I would not post this. However.

This sounds like the plums poem a bit. Eating out of the ice box.

Epstein's whole thing that drove him to engage with intellectual elites financially support the sciences was his misogynist, eugenicist view of the world, so like... excuse me if I don't give Larry Summers a pass for not being a pedophile.

(I'm hoping I didn't completely misunderstand your question. It may not be a very satisfying answer even if it is relevant. I'm also assuming that you're not referring to those constructs, like the Riemann-Silberstein vector, where the imaginary component actually has a physical meaning.)

But since that generality isn't always needed in other contexts, I think "analytic signal" just never really caught on as a term outside signal processing. (This goes way outside of electromagnetism; I've seen complex-valued displacements used to describe sinusoidal waves in fluid dynamics too.)

So "generalizing" from real to complex quantities was somewhat in fashion, and led to a lot of experimental faffing about using complex numbers to simplify equations. The concept of an analytic signal, as I understand it, was created much later as a generalization of these existing practices.

I also believe that much of this started at the same time (and involved some of the same people, e.g. Heaviside) as Laplace transforms and related methods involving contour integration were becoming more common for solving differential equations related to circuits and electromagnetism.

These properties are part of why the "phasor" and complex impedance have been important concepts for describing AC circuits since the 19th century. It's just easier to not use trig identities and approximate every response as linear whenever you can get away with it.

E.g. phase shifting a complex exponential is linear (just a multiplication), unlike purely real sinusoids. Sums of many complex exponentials of the same frequency are also more intuitive to simplify, not requiring extensive use of trig identities.

The former predates the term "analytic signal", and was mostly a matter of convenience of calculations when introduced. I think a lot of that dates back to electrical engineering work done in the 1880's, when complex exponentials were simply easier to work with than sin/cos.

Are you talking about the introduction of complex numbers to represent electromagnetic fields in general, or specifically the situation where a field is decomposed into right+left circularly polarized components? Or something else?

"Oh well, we tried to get some people with differing views to participate, but after emailing the APA, the AAP, and the ES, only the APA responded, and it wasn't really very detailed or substantial, so I guess they can't really rebut our claims." That sort of thing.

more likely (2) they were not interested in allowing critical reviews, only in pretending to engage with the negative comments of the APA, AAP, and ES. So they send an absurd request that they knew none of the three would fully comply with, to put the blame on them for not participating.

This outcome suggests to me that (1) the HHS couldn't convince any specific pro-GAC researchers to participate in peer review (maybe they thought it was a waste of time, or were worried about retribution for a bad review), or

This is probably at least part of why the AAP and ES declined to review, and the APA only sent a ~1 page response followed by a list of suggested references.

This would be a little like emailing a writers' guild for help touching up your screenplay. You shouldn't be asking a union as a whole to do this, but rather finding a specific person who is willing to be involved with your project.

Any emails to the APA, AAP, and ES should have been asking for suggestions of specific researchers to serve as reviewers (which shouldn't even have been necessary for someone familiar with gender medicine). You don't normally ask the society as a whole to do this.

More than any of that though, it seems bonkers to name three *professional societies* as reviewers to represent the consensus view.