3 ms·
> In this post, I’d like to focus on a question that any “explanation” for QM at some point needs to address, in a non-question-begging way: why should amplitud
by calhoun137 8y ago
> In this post, I’d like to focus on a question that any “explanation” for QM at some point needs to address, in a non-question-begging way: why should amplitudes have been complex numbers?
I will take your word for it that
> The question in the post is "Why is the universe this way and not another way?" not "Why do we choose to use complex numbers in our description of the universe?"
but why then does he so prominently raise this question at the beginning, answer it later, and title his post "why are amplitudes complex?". I must be really out of the loop. Did I really get the subject of this post so badly wrong? Sorry about that. Is this not a very confusing way to go about discussing why the universe is this way and not another?
- jessriedel 8y ago"Why are amplitudes complex?" and "why should amplitudes have been complex numbers?" are not the same question as "Why do we choose to use complex numbers in our description of the universe?". Aaronson is using "amplitude" to refer to things out there in the external world. He explicitly refers to other ways the universe could have been: "quaternionic QM [i.e., QM with quaternion amplitudes] allows superluminal signaling". I don't know what to tell you except to read more carefully. It's philosophy of physics.