I mean it's trivial to do quantum math without the imaginary units. Just rename the solutions to algebraic polynomials something else and continue.
There is nothing strange about i and claims contrary to that misunderstand what it even is. Partly terminology is to blame. I simply represents a 90° rotation of space. Really quite simple and easily measurable in our 3d world
The article is a bit sparse of technical details but am I misunderstanding what they're doing or are they describing a field that's isomorphic to C but described as a pair of real numbers? If so, I don't see how that meaningfully takes the imaginary numbers out of quantum mechanics any more than renaming imaginary numbers as extended numbers would.
This might be the crux of the concern though -- "imaginary" numbers are terribly named and even mathematicians can conflate their concept with their name.
„the use of complex numbers helps to distinguish between quantities, that can be measured simultaneously and the one which can't. You would loose that feature, if you would formulate QM purely with real numbers.“
4 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 21.3 ms ] threadThere is nothing strange about i and claims contrary to that misunderstand what it even is. Partly terminology is to blame. I simply represents a 90° rotation of space. Really quite simple and easily measurable in our 3d world
https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/83219/1648