Comment on "Quantum theory based on real numbers cannot be experimentally falsified": On the compatibility of physical principles with information theory for fermions
The manuscript [arXiv:2603.19208] proposes a physically motivated postulate to select the appropriate formulation of quantum theory over real Hilbert spaces, ruling out the theory considered in [Nature 600, 625-629 (2021)] in favour of an alternative theory which reproduces the predictions of standard complex quantum information theory. Here, we argue that, to qualify as a general physical principle, this postulate should also hold in fermionic quantum information theory, the standard framework describing information encoded in the presence or absence of identical fermions. We show, however, that it fails in this framework. More broadly, our result highlights the importance of confronting proposed foundational principles with fermionic quantum information theory, a point that also deserves further examination in recent related works such as [arXiv:2503.17307] and [arXiv:2504.02808].
Comments
Comment on arXiv:2603.19208. 7+5 pages. v2: Revised presentation and clarified terminology; main results unchanged
The manuscript [arXiv:2603.19208] proposes a physically motivated postulate to select the appropriate formulation of quantum theory over real Hilbert spaces, ruling out the theory considered in [Nature 600, 625-629 (2021)] in favour of an alternative theory which reproduces the predictions of standard complex quantum information theory. Here, we argue that, to qualify as a general physical principle, this postulate should also hold in fermionic quantum information theory, the standard framework describing information encoded in the presence or absence of identical fermions. We show, however, that it fails in this framework. More broadly, our result highlights the importance of confronting proposed foundational principles with fermionic quantum information theory, a point that also deserves further examination in recent related works such as [arXiv:2503.17307] and [arXiv:2504.02808].
Complex numbers play a crucial role in quantum mechanics. However, their necessity remains debated: whether they are fundamental or merely convenient. Recently, it was shown that any real-number quantum theory satisfying certain postulates can be falsified with multipartite experiments. In this Letter we show that a physically motivated postulate about composite quantum systems allows us to construct quantum mechanics based on real numbers that reproduces predictions for all multipartite quantum experiments. Thus, we argue that real-valued quantum mechanics cannot be falsified, and therefore the use of complex numbers is a matter of convenience.
Standard quantum mechanics employs complex Hilbert spaces, but whether complex numbers are fundamental or merely convenient has long been debated. For decades, real-valued equivalents were considered mathematically possible but cumbersome. However, a highly cited 2021 result claimed that any quantum theory based on real numbers is experimentally falsifiable via network Bell experiments. Yet, it remains an open question whether this falsification applies to all real-valued theories. Here we show that this conclusion rests on an incomplete real formulation, and we present a rigorous real-valued framework that perfectly reproduces all predictions of standard quantum mechanics. We demonstrate that the standard real tensor product (⊗R) used in previous no-go theorems is algebraically incompatible with the rich structure of conventional quantum mechanics. We present a real framework based on Kähler space and prove that it is exactly isomorphic to established quantum mechanics via an explicit bijection γ. The isomorphism extends to composite systems through a symplectic composition rule $\otimes^{\ks}$ that replaces the Kronecker product. Consequently, our formulation achieves the maximal CHSH3 violation of 62 using purely real variables, demonstrating that the no-go theorem is specific to a particular real representation of states and operators and to the composition rule ⊗R built upon it, neither of which extends to the present Kähler framework. These results demonstrate that complex numbers are not fundamentally required by nature; rather, they encode a deeper real geometric structure that governs quantum interference and entanglement, settling this long debate.
Abstract Although complex numbers are essential in mathematics, they are not needed to describe physical experiments, as those are expressed in terms of probabilities, hence real numbers. Physics, however, aims to explain, rather than describe, experiments through theories. Although 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 1,2 . 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 3 . In fact, previous studies have shown that such a ‘real quantum theory’ can reproduce the outcomes of any multipartite experiment, as long as the parts share arbitrary real quantum states 4 . Here we investigate whether complex numbers are actually needed in the quantum formalism. We show this to be case by proving that real and complex Hilbert-space formulations of quantum theory make different predictions in network scenarios comprising independent states and measurements. This allows us to devise a Bell-like experiment, the successful realization of which would disprove real quantum theory, in the same way as standard Bell experiments disproved local physics.
Modern theoretical physics faces an abundance of mathematically consistent frameworks and a scarcity of decisive empirical constraints. This work proposes a principled response to that situation by identifying stability under intervention as a primary selection criterion for viable physical theories. Adopting an explicitly operational perspective, the paper formulates stability as the non-amplification of operational distinguishability under physical processes, a requirement motivated by the finite precision and reproducibility of experimental practice. When combined with compositional consistency, purification, and reversible symmetry, this principle strongly constrains admissible statistical frameworks. Within this setting, quantum theory emerges not as a fundamental ontology or a historically contingent choice, but as the uniquely stable non-classical fixed point compatible with reproducible physical control by finite agents embedded within the systems they study. The defining structural features of quantum mechanics, including convex state spaces, affine dynamics, state–effect duality, and a Born-type probability rule, arise as consequences rather than postulates. The framework further suggests that spacetime locality and geometry need not be assumed a priori, but can be understood as constraints on the propagation of distinguishability in composite systems. Potential deviations from quantum theory are predicted to manifest as failures of stability, such as breakdown of dilation, violation of distinguishability monotonicity, or loss of local tomography. This repository contains the final submission-ready manuscript together with its LaTeX source and bibliography, deposited on Zenodo prior to journal submission.This version (v1.1) incorporates clarifications on scope, logical dependencies between principles, worked examples within the Jordan-algebra classification, strengthened hedging of speculative material, and refined statements of falsifiability, in response to detailed referee feedback.
Whether the complex numbers of standard quantum theory are experimentally indispensable has remained open for decades. Real quantum theory (RQT), obtained by replacing complex amplitudes with real ones while retaining the usual Kronecker-product composition rule, reproduces all single-party and bipartite Bell correlations of quantum theory (QT), but its lack of local tomography suggested that the two theories might diverge in more general local experiments. This possibility appeared to be confirmed by Renou et al., who argued that a bilocal network experiment can falsify RQT without falsifying QT. Here we show that this conclusion relies on an experimentally untestable assumption. The key distinction is between product-state independence, which constrains the mathematical form of source states, and operational independence, which is defined entirely by the absence of observable cross-source correlations. We prove that, once source independence is imposed operationally, every finite network correlation achievable in QT is also achievable in RQT with the same locality structure of the measurements. We then extend this equivalence to arbitrary finite sequential multipartite protocols involving channels and measurements with prescribed locality structure. Thus, as long as no violation of QT is observed, RQT cannot be experimentally falsified. Our results restore the empirical indistinguishability of QT and RQT, while showing that they support markedly different pictures of the correlation structure underlying the same observed world.
AbstractStandard quantum mechanics is formulated using complex Hilbert spaces, real-valued probabilities, continuous one-parameter dynamics, and—where particles and fields have continuous degrees of freedom —function spaces constructed over continua such as R3 . In that precise mathematical sense, the real and complex continua are deeply embedded in the standard theory. It does not follow, however, that experiments have demonstrated the physical existence of an uncountable set of exact real numbers, still less that individual quantum systems physically “store” infinitely many digits. Every preparation, control operation, and measurement has finite precision, and many quantum predictions can be approximated arbitrarily closely using countable or finite descriptions.This distinction matters because the continuum is sometimes blamed for quantum theory's conceptual strangeness. That diagnosis is mostly unsupported. Superposition, interference, uncertainty, noncommutativity, entanglement, contextuality, Bell-inequality violations, and no-cloning already occur in finite-dimensional quantum systems and do not depend in any straightforward way on continuous position space or arbitrary irrational numbers. Restricting a Hilbert space to rational, algebraic, computable, or finitely specified states therefore does not automatically produce classical physics. Indeed, dense restricted subsets can approximate ordinary quantum predictions to arbitrary finite accuracy, although turning such a subset into a complete physical theory requires much more: closed dynamics, a composition rule, a measurement theory, robustness, and new empirical predictions.A particularly developed contemporary alternative is Tim Palmer's Invariant Set Theory and its recent formulation as Rational Quantum Mechanics (RaQM). RaQM is not accurately described as simply “quantum mechanics with irrational numbers banned.” It restricts the bases in which states are physically defined through number-theoretic rationality conditions, represents admissible states using finite bit strings, invokes a fractal invariant state space equipped with a non-Euclidean, p-adic-like metric, and violates Bell measurement independence at the level of exact counterfactual settings. Palmer's 2026 proposal further predicts a finite qubit-information capacity and an eventual saturation of quantum computational advantage. These are genuine, potentially falsifiable proposals, but they remain speculative and have not displaced standard quantum theory.The strongest conclusion is consequently asymmetric. There is a serious foundational question about whether the continuum is an ontological feature of nature or an extraordinarily efficient mathematical completion. Finite precision prevents existing experiments from proving a literal continuum. But there is presently little evidence that continuum mathematics causes quantum phenomena. Any discrete replacement must still account quantitatively for interference, contextuality, Bell correlations, entanglement, spectroscopy, atomic structure, and quantum computation. Discreteness can change quantum physics only when it is accompanied by additional physical postulates—and those postulates, rather than discreteness alone, must ultimately face experiment.