Two NPs

p1 = - 3/4, p2 = -1/2

Is p1 < p2 or p1 > p2?

If you can't compare NPs then there's no hope.

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

Two NPs

p1 = - 3/4, p2 = -1/2

Is p1 < p2 or p1 > p2?

If you can't compare NPs then there's no hope.

p1 = - 3/4, p2 = -1/2

Is p1 < p2 or p1 > p2?

If you can't compare NPs then there's no hope.

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports)

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

Bakerian Lecture. The Physical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
Abstract

Modern developments of atomic theory have required alterations in some of the most fundamental physical ideas. This has resulted in its being usually easier to discover the equations that describe some particular phenomenon than just how the equations are to be interpreted. The quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger was first worked out for a number of simple examples, from which a general mathematical scheme was constructed, and afterwards people were led to the general physical principles governing the interpretation, such as the superposition of states and the indeterminacy principle. In this way a satisfactory non-relativistic quantum mechanics was established. In extending the theory to make it relativistic, the developments needed in the mathematical scheme are easily worked out, but difficulties arise in the interpretation. If one keeps to the same basis of interpretation as in the non-relativistic theory, one finds that particles have states of negative kinetic energy as well as their usual states of positive energy, and, further, for particles whose spin is an integral number of quanta, there is the added difficulty that states of negative energy occur with a negative probability. With electrons the negative-probability difficulty does not arise, and one can get a sensible interpretation of the negative-energy states by assuming them to be nearly all occupied and an unoccupied one to be a positron. This model, however, is excessively complicated to work with and one cannot get any results from it without making very crude approximations. The simple accurate calculations that one can make would apply to a world which is almost saturated with positrons, and it appears to be a better method of interpretation to make the general assumption that transition probabilities obtained from these calculations for this hypothetical world are the same as those for the actual world. With photons one can get over the negative-energy difficulty by considering the states of positive and negative energy to be associated with the emission and absorption of a photon respectively, instead of, as previously, with the existence of a photon. The simplest way of developing the theory would make it apply to a hypothetical world in which the initial probability of certain states is negative, but transition probabilities calculated for this hypothetical world are found to be always positive, and it is again reasonable to assume that these transition probabilities are the same as those for the actual world.

Modern developments of atomic theory have required alterations in some of the most fundamental physical ideas. This has resulted in its being usually easier to discover the equations that describe some particular phenomenon than just how the equations are to be interpreted. The quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger was first worked out for a number of simple examples, from which a general mathematical scheme was constructed, and afterwards people were led to the general physical principles governing the interpretation, such as the superposition of states and the indeterminacy principle. In this way a satisfactory non-relativistic quantum mechanics was established. In extending the theory to make it relativistic, the developments needed in the mathematical scheme are easily worked out, but difficulties arise in the interpretation. If one keeps to the same basis of interpretation as in the non-relativistic theory, one finds that particles have states of negative kinetic energy as well as their usual states of positive energy, and, further, for particles whose spin is an integral number of quanta, there is the added difficulty that states of negative energy occur with a negative probability. With electrons the negative-probability difficulty does not arise, and one can get a sensible interpretation of the negative-energy states by assuming them to be nearly all occupied and an unoccupied one to be a positron. This model, however, is excessively complicated to work with and one cannot get any results from it without making very crude approximations. The simple accurate calculations that one can make would apply to a world which is almost saturated with positrons, and it appears to be a better method of interpretation to make the general assumption that transition probabilities obtained from these calculations for this hypothetical world are the same as those for the actual world. With photons one can get over the negative-energy difficulty by considering the states of positive and negative energy to be associated with the emission and absorption of a photon respectively, instead of, as previously, with the existence of a photon. The simplest way of developing the theory would make it apply to a hypothetical world in which the initial probability of certain states is negative, but transition probabilities calculated for this hypothetical world are found to be always positive, and it is again reasonable to assume that these transition probabilities are the same as those for the actual world.

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports)

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

Phantasists?Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.Dec 2019 Nature (Scientific reports)

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

Speaking of outlets, I just discovered a few days ago viXra.org. While there may be some legitimate stuff there, a few samples I looked at were quite strange. For example, you see people posting lengthy articles daily or even multiple times a day.Nature Scientific Report is their outlet for crackpots, unfortunately.

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

I had to look that one up: Peeler.Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

They don't know their arx from their elbow.Speaking of outlets, I just discovered a few days ago viXra.org. While there may be some legitimate stuff there, a few samples I looked at were quite strange. For example, you see people posting lengthy articles daily or even multiple times a day.

Optical experiment to test negative probability in context of quantum-measurement selection

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

Same DNA pool.Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**17491**Joined:****Location:**Lviv

Ah yes, the drunken peelers holding up the Penal Laws.I had to look that one up: Peeler.Yeah. Vixra is my evidence #1 when someone asks if peeler review is worth anything.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4OBDtbdUz8

planetoid 17300 == 2002 AV_63

"With this all in place, if the single gravitating atom demonstrates the key ingredient needed for quantum computation, which is curiously associated with "negative probability," nature must take the quantum gravity approach."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210217151017.htm

why not simply think that the model has the wrong foundation...

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210217151017.htm

why not simply think that the model has the wrong foundation...

- katastrofa
**Posts:**6915**Joined:****Location:**Alpha Centauri

Pile of nonsense. They are talking about Wigner functions, not probability, obviously.

In BEC, the temperatures are so low that electrons in the crystal lattice move very slowly. This increases their de Broglie wavelengths and thus the wave-like nature starts to dominate (over the particle nature). It causes a funny effect of the formation of so-called Cooper pair: electron which seem to attract each other (rather than repel because of Coulomb interaction). It happens when one electron and the positive ions of the crystal lattice attract, and this attraction distorts the crystal lattice - they ions sort of gather a bit closer to that electron. Such an accumulation of positive charge attracts another nearby electron (I guess that's the association with gravitational field the cited "team of experts" see). It doesn't mean that the electrons or the Coulomb interaction change their physical character in any way. Simply, the electrons are far enough from each other for the Coulomb interaction to be less valid than the lattice attraction.

We had experimental and theoretical lab investigating BEC at the institute. They wouldn't give me the degree if I didn't know the theory in detail (BCS derivation was obligatory) )

In BEC, the temperatures are so low that electrons in the crystal lattice move very slowly. This increases their de Broglie wavelengths and thus the wave-like nature starts to dominate (over the particle nature). It causes a funny effect of the formation of so-called Cooper pair: electron which seem to attract each other (rather than repel because of Coulomb interaction). It happens when one electron and the positive ions of the crystal lattice attract, and this attraction distorts the crystal lattice - they ions sort of gather a bit closer to that electron. Such an accumulation of positive charge attracts another nearby electron (I guess that's the association with gravitational field the cited "team of experts" see). It doesn't mean that the electrons or the Coulomb interaction change their physical character in any way. Simply, the electrons are far enough from each other for the Coulomb interaction to be less valid than the lattice attraction.

We had experimental and theoretical lab investigating BEC at the institute. They wouldn't give me the degree if I didn't know the theory in detail (BCS derivation was obligatory) )

I have a nagging feeling that your talents may be underutilized in your current role of cat comforter, vegetable grower, and baked goods optimizer, but it’s your utility function to manage!