Russell Standish wrote: > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:48:35PM +0100, Mirek Dobsicek wrote: >> >>> If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you >>> simply don't get wavelike interference patterns. >> To my knowledge, you don't get interference patterns for *positive* >> real-valued Hilbert space, but for real-valued Hilbert space you do. >> >> >> Check http://mina4-49.mc2.chalmers.se/~dobsicek/PhDThesis.pdf on page 39 >> for a quick review and references. >> >> Sincerely, >> Mirek >> > > Thanks for the info - I will take a look, when I'm on top of a few > things. However, I'm not sure what you mean by positive real Hilbert > space, as the positive real numbers do not form a field. I can only > guess you mean some kind of non-Hilbert space generalisation, a bit > like my non-Hilbert space non-commutative division ring gadgets I've > alluded to in the past.
Hi Russel, you are right, a "*positive* real Hilbert space" is a wrong term. However, the point of my comment was to express a belief that your sentence >>> If quantum mechanics was done using a real-valued Hilbert space, you >>> simply don't get wavelike interference patterns. is not correct. But of course, QM as physical framework and as derived from experiments goes with complex numbers. Best, Mirek --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
