4 ms·
Half the article is explicitly talking about how this fundamentally is different than the phenomena you’re talking about. Imaginary numbers are merely convenie
by Armisael16 6y ago
Half the article is explicitly talking about how this fundamentally is different than the phenomena you’re talking about.
Imaginary numbers are merely convenient in the cases you’re describing; you can get the same results without using them. The paper this article is about is claiming that in QM this is fundamentally untrue, and models that don’t use complex numbers cannot match those that do.
- pfortuny 6y agoThey do match. The thing is that the description is much more complex, nothing else. What I see from the preprint (notice that the authors have not discussed it with Quanta, because it is under peer-review) and bothers me is that they "add a real qubit" (...) which should be done very carefully because the two real qubits are not independent (they are linked by the hamiltonian). I have not read the whole preprint, though.
- Enginerrrd 6y agoTo a certain extent, you could probably say the same about the time term in the flat spacetime metric in relativity. There might be ways around it, but I'd wager that anything you come up with can be massaged a bit to make it look like time is an imaginary dimension of space where it's contribution to distance along the spacetime manifold is negative when squared.