3 ms·
Did someone claim otherwise?
by sebzim4500 4y ago
Did someone claim otherwise?
- whatshisface 4y ago"Quantum physics falls apart without imaginary numbers." >Marco made a curious face, so Toni posed the question: “Can standard quantum theory work without imaginary numbers?”
- sebzim4500 4y agoBy that logic, it doesn't even need real numbers. Just do everything with cauchy sequences of rationals.
- whatshisface 4y agoBut you can't really disagree with that. It's wrong to say that physics "needs" any one thing in particular when you can construct it from other things, and use them instead.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jiggawatts 4y agoSomething I've always wondered is: what is the weakest algebra that could be used to model physics? E.g.: Are nationals sufficient? Integers? Finite integers?
- Koshkin 4y agoSure, but like what they say about Lisp, you are then bound to reinvent the complex numbers, poorly.
- contravariant 4y agoIf the title doesn't count then we need to question what it even means for a quantum theory to 'use' imaginary numbers. Because if real skew symmetric matrices count, then a harmonic oscillator also inescapably uses imaginary numbers.