Really? Isn't it just the idea that Schroedinger's time-independant equation is the correct one? Is there not a time-independent version of the correct one (as opposed to the non-relativistic approximation I've seen)?
The best of what people have come up with so far is the Wheeler-de Witt equation. Unfortunately it is not good enough.
If you can remove complex numbers in this manner, you could use R, or R^2 in the same manner as you'd use C, but you could also use R^3, R^4, R^5, etc. It must be more likely that any of those is correct than that R^2 is correct in particular.
Commuting 2x2 real matrices are the smallest real representation of C.
The best of what people have come up with so far is the Wheeler-de Witt equation. Unfortunately it is not good enough.
From what I can find, that looks like some attempt at quantum gravity. We can't do that with MWI either, as far as I know. Am I mistaken about this?
Commuting 2x2 real matrices are the smallest real representation of C.
I guess I'll take your word for it.
Do you really need C for quantum physics though? You can't multiply two amplitudes together. The only thing I've seen is rotating by 90 degrees in Schrodinger's time-dependent equation. If I accept timeless physics, it doesn't even do that.
Timeless physics is what you end up with if you take MWI, assume the universe is a standing wave, and remove the extraneous variables. From what I understand, for the most part you can take a standing wave and add a time-reversed version, you end up with a standing wave that only uses real numbers. The problem with this is that the universe isn't quite time symmetric.
If I ignore that complex numbers ever were used in quantum physics, it seems unlikely that complex numbers is the correct solution. Is there another one? Should I be reversing charge and parity as well as time when I make the standing real-only wave?