I was looking at reviews for Sakurai's Quantum Mechanics textbook, and some mentioned it being outdated, specifically mentioning his use of imaginary time. Is this idea deliberately avoided in modern treatments?

I can't see why a simple parameter change t->it, would be or not be an outdated concept. It doesn't make things significantly prettier, but it doesn't hurt anything either.

With that said I've never before heard the specific phrase imaginary time so maybe it is outdated.


closed as primarily opinion-based by Phoenix87, JamalS, Neuneck, Kyle Kanos, John Rennie Mar 5 '15 at 14:18

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The question "is this something most people think" is an opinion based question, but the part of imaginary time is covered under: physics.stackexchange.com/q/123156, physics.stackexchange.com/q/46798, physics.stackexchange.com/q/107443, and physics.stackexchange.com/q/121380 $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 5 '15 at 13:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ possible duplicate of Special relativity and imaginary coefficient of the time coordinate $\endgroup$ – Kyle Kanos Mar 5 '15 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ Unfortunately, your interesting question was closed by some not so interesting robots. I suggest to reformulate, but without the "Is this something most people think?" sentence. Try to give it a general objectivist roundup. They are not evil, they are only buggy. And register with a real name, so you will have much better chances. Good luck! $\endgroup$ – peterh Mar 5 '15 at 23:07
  • $\begingroup$ I've edited the question. Is this better? $\endgroup$ – user2264247 Mar 6 '15 at 3:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see. I was looking for an explanation relating to QM so the questions mentioning Minkowski space didn't seem right. But I guess the answer is essentially the same. It hides essential mathematical features without truly simplifying anything. $\endgroup$ – user2264247 Mar 6 '15 at 4:17