tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post5498552306554187806..comments2017-01-18T02:25:19.116-08:00Comments on A Neighborhood of Infinity: Negative ProbabilitiesDan Piponihttps://plus.google.com/107913314994758123748noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-62916724717292163132010-07-04T23:22:32.616-07:002010-07-04T23:22:32.616-07:00Hi Dan. I wrote you an email related to this artic...Hi Dan. I wrote you an email related to this article but never got a response.Francisco Albanihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12722364785259927270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-11466347457899312652009-10-27T15:50:58.779-07:002009-10-27T15:50:58.779-07:00http://ded.increpare.com/~locus/Puppytron/ <- I...http://ded.increpare.com/~locus/Puppytron/ <- I made a small silly flash thing based on the example above (not exactly the same probabilities, though).Stephen Lavellehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06196127397721259722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-4494678749190407392008-04-15T23:01:00.000-07:002008-04-15T23:01:00.000-07:00Excellent article. Thanks! It clarified a lot.Excellent article. Thanks! It clarified a lot.Andres N. Kievskyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00265331700609152907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-31629370241306764692008-04-15T07:45:00.000-07:002008-04-15T07:45:00.000-07:00david,Good point!david,<BR/><BR/>Good point!sigfpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08096190433222340957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-20371253300171520292008-04-15T04:13:00.000-07:002008-04-15T04:13:00.000-07:00Sigfpe,I don't think chro was emphasising the "on ...Sigfpe,<BR/><BR/>I don't think chro was emphasising the "on average" bit, only that you've assigned a probability of -1/2 to tails, not heads, so the expected number of tails is -5. The expected number of heads is 15.Davidhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03396164169951516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-30359458433906258442008-04-13T08:45:00.000-07:002008-04-13T08:45:00.000-07:00Thanks. Each time I read about quantum theory I un...Thanks. Each time I read about quantum theory I understand it a bit better :)<BR/><BR/>Dave Bacon posted a similar (same?) <A HREF="http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2007/11/learn_quantum_theory_in_ten_mi.php" REL="nofollow">explanation</A> a few months ago.shreevatsahttp://shreevatsa.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-70839713375521554292008-04-13T07:07:00.000-07:002008-04-13T07:07:00.000-07:00chro,My use of 'expect' is technical terminology: ...chro,<BR/><BR/>My use of 'expect' is technical terminology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value<BR/><BR/>That's a bit sloppy on my part, I should have stuck with ordinary English!sigfpehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08096190433222340957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-50053507853814211032008-04-13T05:40:00.000-07:002008-04-13T05:40:00.000-07:00Hi,In the second paragraph, shouldn't it be "after...Hi,<BR/><BR/>In the second paragraph, shouldn't it be "after tossing such a coin 10 times we'd expect to see -5 _tails_ on average.", or am I getting something wrong?chrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10479234589546795661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-68017622285085271342008-04-13T00:11:00.000-07:002008-04-13T00:11:00.000-07:00Very neat. But QM wouldn't be as fun if it didn't ...Very neat. But QM wouldn't be as fun if it didn't give you a good reason to throw around words like "unitary transformation."Tac-Ticshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14070765709653635739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-67295680064923611872008-04-12T22:46:00.000-07:002008-04-12T22:46:00.000-07:00http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdfhttp://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdfRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14719368822663798864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11295132.post-12834710892406935062008-04-12T20:19:00.000-07:002008-04-12T20:19:00.000-07:00For most problems that can be solved using complex...For most problems that can be solved using complex numbers, they are the simplest way. But of course, that assumes you already have the necessary education. <BR/><BR/>Also, the complex representation A*exp(i*x) directly gives you the phase x, which speaks directly to the wave nature of particles.<BR/><BR/>And of course, chemists (i.e. the people that actually do stuff with QM) come up with linear combinations of complex wavefunctions that are real. You can pretty much always do that, if you don't like complex numbers. But it doesn't usually simplify the math.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, I don't think negative probabilities are conceptually any simpler than complex numbers. But hey, it never hurts to understand something an extra way.Enginerdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07211929551692433064noreply@blogger.com