Imaginary numbers might describe the universe

[Cypress]

Shorter version: are imaginary numbers just a calculational convenience? Or do they express a fundamental property of ultimate reality.

Imaginary numbers could be needed to describe reality, new studies find

Imaginary numbers are what you get when you take the square root of a negative number, and they have long been used in the most important equations of quantum mechanics.

Imaginary numbers are what you get when you take the square root of a negative number, and they have long been used in the most important equations of quantum mechanics.

In fact, even the founders of quantum mechanics themselves thought that the implications of having complex numbers in their equations was disquieting. In a letter to his friend Hendrik Lorentz, physicist Erwin Schrödinger — the first person to introduce complex numbers into quantum theory, with his quantum wave function (ψ) — wrote, "What is unpleasant here, and indeed directly to be objected to, is the use of complex numbers. Ψ is surely fundamentally a real function."




https://www.livescience.com/imaginar...scribe-reality

[Trumpet]

Shorter version: are imaginary numbers just a calculational convenience? Or do they express a fundamental property of ultimate reality.

When understanding the universe, we are still in our infancy.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Isn't it way too early for math? lol

My brain just looks at this and says "nope." Nevertheless I'm gonna try to understand the article.

[Cypress]

Isn't it way too early for math? lol

My brain just looks at this and says "nope." Nevertheless I'm gonna try to understand the article.

My two cents: one has to exercise the brain as much as the body.

Now, drop and give me 20 pushups after reading the article!

[BidenPresident]

When understanding the universe, we are still in our infancy.

Based on what?

[Trumpet]

Based on what?

That's a good question, considering the fact that we don't know, what we don't know.

[BidenPresident]

That's a good question, considering the fact that we don't know, what we don't know.

Maybe there is not a universe to be understood.

[Trumpet]

Maybe there is not a universe to be understood.

Who knows, you could just be right.

[BidenPresident]

Who knows, you could just be right.

I believe the universe is evolving and no single state is definitive. As Heisenberg said, there is no universe without people involved in it.

[Trumpet]

I believe the universe is evolving and no single state is definitive. As Heisenberg said, there is no universe without people involved in it.

Heisenberg's point of view is as good as anybody's else.

[BidenPresident]

Heisenberg's point of view is as good as anybody's else.

I think it is true. In fact, I think people always believed it. The mechanism of Newton was a new idea and is proven to be false.

[Trumpet]

I think it is true. In fact, I think people always believed it. The mechanism of Newton was a new idea and is proven to be false.

I can't dispute that, because I just don't know.

[Cypress]

When understanding the universe, we are still in our infancy.

That, and also there is a lot we still don't know about numbers, whether real, rational, or imaginary.

I recently read that only a few transcendental numbers have ever been derived, even though theoretically the quantity of transcendental numbers should be vastly more than the quantity of real numbers.

[Cypress]

I believe the universe is evolving and no single state is definitive. As Heisenberg said, there is no universe without people involved in it.

I do not follow what you mean.

My two cents is that from the perspective of scientific realism, scientific theories can and sometimes do provide an accurate picture of reality, including unobservable reality. Largely because it is assumed the universe is deterministic, or at least can be understood probabilistically.

Knowledge evolves. Obviously. Newtonian mechanics still works reasonably well as an approximation of physical reality, it just does not account for variable moving frames of reference, which was the improvement Einstein introduced.

[BidenPresident]

I do not follow what you mean.

My two cents is that from the perspective of scientific realism, scientific theories can and sometimes do provide an accurate picture of reality, including unobservable reality. Largely because it is assumed the universe is deterministic, or at least can be understood probabilistically.

Knowledge evolves. Obviously. Newtonian mechanics still works reasonably well as an approximation of physical reality, it just does not account for variable moving frames of reference, which was the improvement Einstein introduced.

I am not a scientific realist. Neither was Heisenberg.