Complex Hilbert space is usually assumed at the start of quantum mechanics. This paper formulates a reverse construction for the one-particle and operator-algebraic setting. Starting from a real Hilbert space carrying an orthogonal representation, the admissible imaginary units are identified with the skew-adjoint square roots of − Id in the Real commutant of the complexified representation. The novelty is not the isolated use of complexification, spectral orientation, or polar decomposition, but their order of dependence: first the symmetry representation defines an intrinsic operator-valued phase space; then an oriented internal time flow selects a distinguished point of that phase space; only afterward are the usual complex one-particle, observable, probability, and Weyl–CCR structures invoked under their standard hypotheses. In the terminology used here, this oriented internal flow is the reversible or inner-generative side of a dual-time distinction. It is not a second observer clock and not an additional Lorentzian coordinate: mathematically it is the strongly continuous orthogonal group U ( t ) = exp ( t A ) on the real Hilbert space. Its Stone-dual variable is energy/frequency λ ; canonical conjugation pairs λ with − λ ; positive energy orients this pair and selects the canonical phase on the dynamic sector through A = J | A | = | A | J . Thus inner-generative time is the source of phase orientation, while irreversible record time, projection, memory, and decoherence enter only as later reduced-dynamics layers. No spectral gap at zero is required, and zero modes remain visible as residual phase data rather than being hidden by the construction. The selected phase is invariant under time-orientation-preserving symmetries and changes sign under time reversal, giving the usual antiunitary action after complex reconstruction. The paper also makes explicit the monoidal limitation: two selected local phases do not make the raw real tensor product the standard composite system; the standard composite is recovered only after imposing the J -balanced, equivalently complex, tensor product rule. Thus the result is a reconstruction of compatible complex kinematics on the selected one-particle/operator-algebraic sector, not a derivation of all quantum foundations from purely real data.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mohamed Haj Yousef (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: