4 ms·
Interesting. My reaction was the opposite: I find it a very muddled and unclear blogpost, and frankly I am not sure there is anything insightful or useful in it
by FabHK 7y ago
Interesting. My reaction was the opposite: I find it a very muddled and unclear blogpost, and frankly I am not sure there is anything insightful or useful in it. I’d say, yes, Answer 1 is it, you are looking at two different settings, each of which is reasonably well understood by now. What has Bayes got to do with it?
- 317070 7y agoI agree, the blogpost is not written clearly. But there is something fundementally odd about how wavefunctions cause seemingly negative probabilities. And understanding that might lead to improvements in how we deal with probabilities and statistics. Contrary to what people might think from their schoolbooks, a lot of statistics is built on a swampy foundation.
- aeternum 7y agoConstructive and destructive interference are generally well-understood and common phenomena even in the macro world. Sound waves, ocean waves, string instruments. With QM, the probability can never be negative since it is calculated as the amplitude squared. Somewhat similarly, with ocean waves, we are not concerned that troughs are somehow creating negative energy when energy of an ocean wave = amplitude squared.