| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Mike Maxwell" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2005 08:14:57 AM |
| Object: |
negative information |
From http://www.physorg.com/news5621.html:
What could negative knowledge possibly mean?
"If I tell it to you, you will know less,"
explained Dr Andreas Winter.
Uh, gee, guys, that happens to me all the time, and I always thought it
was because I was a boomer, and all the grey matter in my brain was
leaking out into my hair.
All seriousness aside :-), it's an interesting idea, but I can't say I
can make heads or tails of it. Hey, wait, that's the point of the
article: before I read it, I thought I understood a tiny bit about
quantum entanglement. Now I don't understand it at all!
Mike McSwell
.
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: negative information |
11 Aug 2005 09:54:08 AM |
|
|
It's yet another example of scientists' accounting abuse. This time,
they can't tell the difference between cardinal and ordinal sign. It
might be best to switch over to number classes by set operations.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/2d044eb1d4fa0096/5451a4edc72c446a
John Baez still doesn't know the difference between scalar and vector
sign.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: negative information |
12 Aug 2005 08:08:16 PM |
|
|
Mike Maxwell wrote:
From http://www.physorg.com/news5621.html:
<...>it's an interesting idea, but I can't say I
can make heads or tails of it. Hey, wait, that's the point of the
article: before I read it, I thought I understood a tiny bit about
quantum entanglement. Now I don't understand it at all!
I can only answer in annoying generalities. First of all, once you
quantitatively define anything which at first seems to make sense only
in some range of values, you can, inevitably, begin to ask yourself
what it would mean outside that range of values. Thus, from particles
restricted by in velocity by c we begin to consider tachyons, from
roots of positive numbers we begin to consider roots of negative
numbers, and so on. Sometimes the results will be richer than others,
but usually I think you can usually make the previously forbidden zone
mean _something_ -- math is accomidating.
That said, you shouldn't expect to understand anything from that
pop-science synopsis. They don't even bother to review the
quantitative definition of _positive_ information! Maybe I'll go to
that strange place where they keep all the books tomorrow...
Oh yes ... some in QM affect to give meaning to negative probability.
This is in that tradition. yawn.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: negative information |
12 Aug 2005 09:32:48 PM |
|
|
There is a truism here.
The truth about people is negative
People would like to think that the truth
about them is beautiful!
It aint true.
The first truth about you is negative!
Te.He.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
