"The true metaphysics of the square root negative 1 remains elusive." - C.F. Gauss

Cypress

Well-known member
Are imaginary numbers just a mathematical convenience or do they have a tangible reality?

Does quantum mechanics need imaginary numbers?

The square root of negative one doesn’t correspond to any physical quantity, but that doesn’t mean it has no place in the physical sciences. For example, putting an imaginary number in an exponent changes the behavior of the exponential from rapid growth or decay to a steady sinusoidal oscillation. The result is a useful description of the physics of waves.

In electromagnetism and most other fields of physics, imaginary numbers are merely a mathematical convenience. All the relevant phenomena can still be described using nothing but real numbers. Quantum mechanics is an exception: The observable quantities and probabilities are by necessity all real, but the underlying quantum states and governing equations involve imaginary numbers, and there’s no simple way to remove them. But are they just an artifact of the way the theory was written down, or do they really need to be there?

In their new theoretical work, Miguel Navascués of the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Vienna and colleagues shed some light on that question.1 They find that, subject to some postulates about how a quantum theory must be mathematically structured, no real-valued version of quantum theory can duplicate all the predictions of the familiar complex-valued formulation. Moreover, they designed an experimentally feasible test capable of ruling out real-valued quantum theories. In the time since their proposal was made public in January 2021, two groups carried out the experiment—and both found results in favor of standard complex-valued quantum theory.


 
That's proof of how quantum theory works though... :awesome:

You know, Schrodinger's Gender... :bleh:
The question being studied is whether we introduced imaginary numbers to quantum equations by coincidence, as an artifact of the way we constructed the theory, or whether imaginary numbers have some independent tangible connection to reality on their own.
 
In the grand scheme of things this more important and consequential than whether some transgender swam for a women's team.
cd5352eae95a9ee1617588ef82490c8b.gif
 
i don't know, and i really don't care... :awesome:

Neither does @Cypress but the whole point of the OP is to impress you.

Surely such heady fare must come from the mind of a great thinker. Unfortunately, as per usual, Cypress is just quoting someone else. Cypress couldn't tell you anything technical about this topic. He's just trying to sound smarter than he actually is.
 
The question being studied is whether we introduced imaginary numbers to quantum equations by coincidence, as an artifact of the way we constructed the theory, or whether imaginary numbers have some independent tangible connection to reality on their own.

haha.gif

This thread is going to be good.
 
This thread is going to be good.
Thanks for your tacit confession that the gist of the article is intelligible to anyone with a good high school or college education.

Feel free to create threads about transgenders on women's swimming teams if you don't like this topic.
 
Thanks for your tacit confession that the gist of the article is intelligible to anyone with a good high school or college education.

Feel free to create threads about transgenders on women's swimming teams if you don't like this topic.

LOL.

You are hilarious. You aren't going to discuss anything. You're just going to quote mathematicians you don't even understand.

Everyone knows this. Everyone's seen it before with you.

This is literally all you ever do when you aren't conspiring with Dutch Kunckle to attack other posters.
 
LOL.
.You're just going to quote mathematicians you don't even understand.
Imaginary numbers were covered in advanced algebra in 11th grade, Perry.

You don't have to have an advanced degree in mathematics to get the gist of articles written for the general public by science journalists.

If you hate my threads, why are you always on them Perry?
 
@Cypress
Imaginary numbers were covered in advanced algebra in 11th grade, Perry.

You don't have to have an advanced degree in mathematics to get the gist of articles written for the general public by science journalists.

If you hate my threads, why are you always on them Perry?

You are talking about imaginary numbers in QUantum, Cletus. You don't understand quantum. I've seen your various claims to "knowledge" on here and frankly I think it's obvious to everyone you have NO CLUE what this topic entails.

This is hilarious.
 
@Cypress

You are talking about imaginary numbers in QUantum, Cletus.
That's what the article talks about. You are free to claim I am not allowed to talk about what is in the article I posted, but that's not the way message boards work Perry.

Your anger and resentment of me is exactly the same as your other sock puppets :laugh:
 
Claim? You make claims all the time you never support. Like your claim that I'm Percy. When no such person exists.

Why do you feel it appropriate to lie like that?
Okay Perry, so you just burst onto the thread with your grievances, and didn't even skim the article I posted.

I discussed information that was provided in the article I posted. That's standard message board practice.

If you hate my threads, why are you always on them Perry PhD?
 
Okay Perry, so you just burst onto the thread with your grievances, and didn't even skim the article I posted.

I discussed information that was provided in the article I posted. That's standard message board practice.

If you hate my threads, why are you always on them Perry PhD?

Why can't you ever support your own claims?

Every accusation is a confession with you.
 
That's what the article talks about. You are free to claim I am not allowed to talk about what is in the article I posted, but that's not the way message boards work Perry.

Your anger and resentment of me is exactly the same as your other sock puppets :laugh:

So now we know you have Sock puppets on here.

Every accusation is a confession with you.

Who are YOUR socks?

I'm guessing Dutch Uncle. That's an easy one. He always "shows up" just when you are getting your ass handed to you in any given debate. Usually by that time you've stopped debating the point and started attacking the other poster. Then shortly thereafter Dutch Uncle shows up. Like clockwork.

Watch, it'll happen here. 10, 9, 8, 7....
 
Neither does @Cypress but the whole point of the OP is to impress you.

Surely such heady fare must come from the mind of a great thinker. Unfortunately, as per usual, Cypress is just quoting someone else. Cypress couldn't tell you anything technical about this topic. He's just trying to sound smarter than he actually is.
i think you sound like a square in this case... :unsure:
 
Back
Top