2

Is it possible to define quantum mechanics in real vector spaces instead of complex vector spaces and what would the dimensionality be of such a vector space?

Can anyone referee me such a treatment of a 2 state system, say the spin system.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Natanael
  • 449

1 Answers1

6

It depends on what you mean by real. Every complex Hilbert space is also a real Hilbert space (with double dimension) simply decomposing complex numbers into real and imaginary parts. A complex wavefunction $\psi$ has the same information as a couple of real wavefunctions $(Re \psi, Im \psi)$. So standard quantum mechanics can be formulated into a real Hilbert space made of a sum of orthogonal preferred subspaces without problems.

However, there is another physically deeper interpretation, based on the following observation. In quantum mechanics, states are unit vectors up to phases: $\psi$ and $\psi' = e^{ia}\psi$ with $a \in \mathbb R$ are the same state. All the formalism is constructed to be invariant under this replacement.

Decomposing complex numbers into a pair of real numbers, phases become rotations. $$(Re \psi, Im \psi)^t \to R \:(Re \psi, Im \psi)^t$$ with $$ R= \left[\matrix{\cos a \:\:\sin a \\ -\sin a\: \cos a }\right]\:. $$ So, passing to the real formulation, the Hilbert space splits into a direct sum of real Hilbert spaces and states are vectors up to rotations $R$ as before, mixing the two real Hilbert spaces.

It is also clear that not all self-adjoint operators in the overall real Hilbert space define observables. Observables are self-adjoint operators of the real Hilbert space constructed out of the complex one, thus commuting with these rotations, i.e. commuting with the operator $$ J= \left[\matrix{0\:\:-I \\ I\quad \:\: 0}\right]\:. $$ satisfying $JJ=-I$ and $J^*=-J$ (like the imaginary unit).

Given that, there is another idea concerning real quantum mechanics. I mean a formulation where pure states are vectors up to signs (the phases of real numbers). Observables are here every self-adjoint operator.

This is a deeply different formulation which does not match with the previous one and is permitted by famous Solér's theorem. (A third formulation concerns Hilbert spaces constructed using quaternions in place of real or complex numbers.) All fundamental theorems (as Stone's, Gleason's, Kadison's and Wigner's theorem) hold true also with a completely real formulation of this sort.

A difficult problem with this intrinsically real formulation is that the relation between continuous symmetries and constants of motion is no longer automatic, since continuous symmetries $\{U_t\}_{t\in \mathbb R}$ are generated (Stone's theorem) by anti self-adjoint operators $A$ $$U_t= e^{tA}$$ exactly as in the complex case, but there we can re-define $$A= iA'$$ and $A'$ is self-adjoint. With the real formulation $i$ does not exist, but can be replaced for an antiself-adjoint operator satisfying $JJ=-I$, commuting with time evolution and all the relevant observables. This operator (if any) must be provided by physics.

The overall physical problem is: if the intrinsic real formulation is mathematically permitted, why no known physical system is described by it?

This is a long standing issue which can be traced back to Stueckelberg who referred to Heisenberg principle (where $i$ explicitly shows up) to rule out real formulations. In my view this approach is not satisfactory because Heisenberg principle is not nowadays so fundamental tackling the problem form a fundamental viewpoint, and also Heisenberg principle holds for massive particles only.

Recently, together with my PhD student M. Oppio, we proved that (arXiv:1611.09029 Rev. Math. Phys. 29 (2017) 1750021) as soon as one assumes that the quantum system is both relativistic and elementary, no real formulations are permitted, or better, they are indistinguishable from complex formulations. An analogous result holds for quaternionic formulations arXiv:1709.09246

  • Excellent answer! Could you clarify why "This operator (if any) must be provided by physics"? Why must it be provided by physics? Since we always can represent the algebra of complex numbers with 2x2 matrices: must not $i$ also be provided by physics then? Since your $J$ here just is the matrix representation $i$. – Natanael Feb 24 '18 at 13:35
  • It must be provided by physics because mathematics does not provide it from scratch. Yes, my $J$, when the real theory is obtained by a complex one, is a matrix representation of $i$. What we proved in our paper is that, when the real Hilbert space supports a continuous representation of Poincaré group and the system satisfies further elementariness properties, then a natural $J$ exists constructed out of the representation, $J$ commutes with all observables and thus the theory can be re-written as a complex one. – Valter Moretti Feb 24 '18 at 14:14
  • @ValterMoretti Interesting thought! Could you please explain why the following naive construction has issues? You can expand the probability for a measurement P=|<psi|phi>|^2 into a sum of component products. Looking at it, you could also write two n x n dimension real vectors psi and phi to get P. The dimensions are not independent and you could use SVD to reduce them - hopefully to 2n. Don't you have a real vector to do QM now? You only need to write out the time evolution on it. – Gere Sep 07 '21 at 07:08
  • The point is that in real quantum mechanics pure states are unit vectors up to signs, differently from complex quantum mechanics where pure states are unit vectors up to phases. When you naively decomplexify complex quantum mechanics you obtain a fake real quantum mechanics where pure states are vectors up to rotations of $O(2)$, instead of signs. These rotations are obtained by decomposing phases into real and imaginary parts. – Valter Moretti Sep 07 '21 at 07:35
  • @ValterMoretti We may be talking about different ways to write real vectors? In what I suggest above the difference between pure and unpure states is not sign, but the vector length. Could you please point me to one particular section/equation in a paper to see the issue? I'm not sure which part of the paper talks about the issue. I mean in what I wrote in the comment, there are real vectors and the results for QM are identical (due to being a simple rewrite). I would like to see the specific math to understand the issue. – Gere Sep 07 '21 at 10:00