TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified

175 点作者 SquibblesRedux超过 3 年前

11 条评论

doubleunplussed超过 3 年前
Note that it is trivial to split the real and imaginary parts into two separate real-numbers and write quantum mechanics that way with only real numbers. Instead of i you get a 90 degree rotation matrix, instead of individual numbers you get a 2-element vector, etc.<p>Lacking &quot;numbers&quot; with the right arithmetic properties for other things in quantum mechanics, we indeed use matrices and vectors for other stuff all the time. Dirac figured he needed some 4×4 matrices in order to be able to take the square root of some operator at some point, which is how his equation predicted the existence of antimatter (because it implied the wavefunction had to be a vector with more components - some of the other components turned out to be antimatter).<p>But complex numbers happen to have the right properties that at least we can do without matrices and vectors for the lowest-level quantities in quantum mechanics: the state amplitudes or the values of wavefunctions of spinless, non-relativistic particles. This article is saying that you can&#x27;t do away with these properties at the lowest level of quantum mechanics, whether or not you actually use complex numbers to represent them.
评论 #29645585 未加载
评论 #29644859 未加载
评论 #29644378 未加载
评论 #29645165 未加载
评论 #29646187 未加载
评论 #29645567 未加载
评论 #29644347 未加载
评论 #29646053 未加载
评论 #29647288 未加载
magicalhippo超过 3 年前
Lucien Hardy wrote a paper[1] showing how one &quot;naturally&quot; ends up with a quantum theory by demanding a few reasonable axioms. The paper also goes into how this implies complex numbers (and rules out quaternions).<p>Scott Aaronson has a more accessible (and humorous) article on it here[2].<p>Entanglement has been shown to be intimately linked to this[3] result, which is interesting given the experimental evidence[4] for entanglement.<p>Not my field, but I found this interesting at least.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;0101012" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;quant-ph&#x2F;0101012</a><p>[2]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;democritus&#x2F;lec9.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.scottaaronson.com&#x2F;democritus&#x2F;lec9.html</a><p>[3]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;0911.0695" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;arxiv.org&#x2F;abs&#x2F;0911.0695</a><p>[4]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Quantum_entanglement#Notable_experimental_results_proving_quantum_entanglement" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Quantum_entanglement#Notable_e...</a>
评论 #29648461 未加载
评论 #29652967 未加载
rnhmjoj超过 3 年前
I&#x27;m surprised the article doesn&#x27;t mention phases or the idea of projective Hilbert spaces. The QM formulation it gives is well known ambiguous: the condition &lt;φ|φ&gt;=1 does not determine φ, because it&#x27;s also satisfied by any other state ψ=exp(iλ)φ with λ real. So, the state of a physical system is really described by the ray (equivalent class) of all state vectors differing by a phase.<p>I wonder if this has any consequence on their reasoning and conclusions.
评论 #29649206 未加载
oofbey超过 3 年前
It’s quite strange that the abstract implies Einstein is a founder of QM. More the opposite I think. Einstein remained deeply skeptical of many fundamental aspects of QM - believing in hidden variable theory through his famous statement “God does not play dice with the universe” which was only proven false after his death through experimental measurements of the Bell inequalities.<p>This paper describes another set of inequalities similar to the Bell inequalities, but testing whether QM requires complex numbers or not, instead of whether there are hidden variables that can explain things like superposition.<p>The statement in the abstract I’m referring to is this:<p>&gt; This has puzzled countless physicists, including the fathers of the theory, for whom a real version of quantum theory, in terms of real operators, seemed much more natural.[3]<p>The reference [3] is to a letter by Einstein. Maybe I’m nitpicking words, but scientists tend to spend a lot of time getting the abstracts to their papers right. Any ideas why they would write it this way?
评论 #29646501 未加载
评论 #29646478 未加载
评论 #29659395 未加载
评论 #29647414 未加载
analog31超过 3 年前
Can we go further and ditch the reals, relying instead on rational numbers or even IEEE floats? After all, the computers that we use for predicting empirical results all run on integers.
评论 #29644995 未加载
评论 #29644493 未加载
评论 #29644254 未加载
评论 #29644966 未加载
评论 #29651502 未加载
评论 #29644565 未加载
scotty79超过 3 年前
Actually real physical experiments don&#x27;t deal with real numbers. Every result of every experiment was a rational number.<p>Real numbers in physics are no less bizzare than complex numbers.
himinlomax超过 3 年前
This reminds me of something that was once linked on HN but that I can&#x27;t remember enough of to find again. The thesis was that <i>some</i> of the iconic <i>quantum weirdness™</i> simply disappears when you just dispense with taking the real part (or the norm) of the wave function as a final step and instead just consider the complex value. IIRC this seemed to made the double-slit experiment way more straightforward. Does that ring a bell to anyone?
评论 #29647575 未加载
johnp271超过 3 年前
There is a nice 10 minute discussion about this paper by physicist Sabine Hossenfelder on her &quot;Science without the gobbelydgook&quot; youtube series (which I recommend). She considers the existential questions regarding necessity of complex numbers a &quot;super-niche nerd fight&quot;. You can find the video here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ALc8CBYOfkw&amp;t=78s" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=ALc8CBYOfkw&amp;t=78s</a>.
daxfohl超过 3 年前
I wonder if this can also be used to disprove the possibility of any QM based on quaternions?
评论 #29647312 未加载
EGreg超过 3 年前
Okay so for us laypeople - what does this mean? Quantum theory is wrong? :-)
评论 #29644729 未加载
评论 #29644800 未加载
评论 #29649422 未加载
评论 #29645739 未加载
tzs超过 3 年前
&gt; Although complex numbers are essential in mathematics, they are not needed to describe physical experiments, as those are expressed in terms of probabilities, hence real numbers. Physics, however, aims to explain, rather than describe, experiments through theories. Although most theories of physics are based on real numbers, quantum theory was the first to be formulated in terms of operators acting on complex Hilbert spaces. This has puzzled countless physicists, including the fathers of the theory, for whom a real version of quantum theory, in terms of real operators, seemed much more natural.<p>I wonder if the use of complex numbers in QM theories to describe a real world that only needed real numbers inspired Asimov&#x27;s 1942 short story &quot;The Imaginary&quot;?<p>In that story psychology has been developed into a hard science. In some third rate college on some backwater planet some first year psychology students were doing a lab where they ran some animals through sequences of stimuli and observing the reactions and verifying they matched what the math said should happen.<p>One of the animals fell asleep, which was not what was supposed to happen. It was reproducible and very specific. You run through that exact sequence of stimuli, and as soon as you hit the last one it falls asleep. Vary the order and it doesn&#x27;t sleep. Vary the timing by even a tiny amount, no sleep.<p>Word of this got back to the galactic federation&#x27;s leading psychologist. Think the Einstein of psychology. He utterly could not explain it. Eventually though he came up with equations that worked, but they involved imaginary numbers. When applying these equations to the specific stimulus sequence all the imaginary quantities squared or cancelled out and you ended up with a real result, which was that the animal would sleep.<p>This was controversial and caused quite an uproar in psychological circles, and while the leading psychologist was away dealing with that a couple of his students found a case where the imaginary numbers did not get squared or cancelled out. The predicted real world reaction to the stimulus sequence involved an imaginary number, and they have no idea what the heck that even means.<p>They try it, and what it means turns out to be that some kind of slowly expanding radiation field gets created around the animal that kills other life that spends too long in the field.<p>The top psychologist is called back and is able to calculate further stimuli that will stop the expansion. That works and catastrophe is averted.<p>Asimov in 1942 would certainly have been aware of QM and the whole &quot;complex number theory to make real number predictions&quot; aspect of it.