HackerPapers

arXiv:2101.10873quant-ph

Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experimentally falsified

Marc-Olivier Renou, David Trillo, Mirjam Weilenmann, Thinh P. Le, Armin Tavakoli, Nicolas Gisin, Antonio Acin, Miguel Navascues

Abstract

While complex numbers are essential in mathematics, they are not needed to describe physical experiments, expressed in terms of probabilities, hence real numbers. Physics however aims to explain, rather than describe, experiments through theories. While 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. In fact, previous works showed that such "real quantum theory" can reproduce the outcomes of any multipartite experiment, as long as the parts share arbitrary real quantum states. Thus, are complex numbers really needed in the quantum formalism? Here, we show this to be case by proving that real and complex quantum theory make different predictions in network scenarios comprising independent states and measurements. This allows us to devise a Bell-like experiment whose successful realization would disprove real quantum theory, in the same way as standard Bell experiments disproved local physics.

arXiv comments
21 pages. Some typos corrected in the analytic proof, new discussion about the use of tensor products to model space-like separation in quantum field theory, short introduction to non-local real quantum models reproducing the predictions of quantum theory, compendium of theoretical arguments against real quantum theory, real quantum simulation of joint measurements of independent preparations
Journal reference
Nature 600, 625-629 (2021)
DOI
doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04160-4
Subjects
quant-phQuantum Physics

On Hacker News

Linked by 3 identifiable commenters in 4 comments across 4 threads, from Mar 2021 to Feb 2026. Found in 2 HN submissions from Jan 2021 to Mar 2021. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments4 threads

    • Perhaps of your interest might be this work https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10873v1 on why quantum physics needs complex numbers to work. Interesting noting though that as for solving polynomials, quantum physics might be also considered a “convenience” within the Copenhagen…

      the-last-userView on HNParent context

    • This is your regularly scheduled reminder that the author of these papers (https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10873, https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.15128), which this article is based on know very well that complex numbers have real matrix representations. What they add which your comment…

      eigenketView on HNParent context

    • Whole numbers can be defined and proven to be necessary to describe the world pretty easily. From there, rational numbers are trivial to define. Negative numbers are somewhat more abstract, but they have very intuitive definitions in many domains, such as accounting. It may be…

      tsimionescuView on HNParent context

    • The paper is describing a test of a particular alternative to quantum mechanics called "real quantum mechanics", its rather more specific than you are suggesting https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10873 I know a few of the people on that preprint, and I'm pretty certain they all know…

      eigenketView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.