Slashdot Mirror


Quantum Information Can be Negative

nerdlygirl writes "In a development that would probably even puzzle Claude Shannon, information can be negative -- at least when the information is quantum. The discovery, by Horodecki, Oppenheim, and Winter, appears in the current edition of the leading journal Nature. If I tell you negative information, you'll know less. Apparently, researchers hope to use this to gain deeper insights into phenomena such as quantum teleportation and computation, as well as the very structure of the quantum world. More details can be found here and here A popular account of the article can be found on Oppenheim's homepage, and a free version of the article can be found in the arxiv for those of us without subscriptions to Nature."

445 comments

  1. This is not news by denissmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Karl Rove has known this for years.

    --
    I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
    1. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn. Beat me to it. ;)

    2. Re:This is not news by jdray · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Choose your favorite punchline:

      a) Ah, so that's what's been coming out of the White House all this time.

      b) If I commit, is it really a rollback?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    3. Re:This is not news by sratbot · · Score: 3, Informative

      FTFA: "It sometimes seems that we become more ignorant after talking to certain individuals. Perhaps they are saying things which are confusing or untrue. Well, after getting negative information, you know less. But not in the same sense as someone who tells you lies are tries to bamboozle you. Remember, that we don't worry about the quality of information (whether it is true or false for example). We just concern ourselves with how much there is. So, if we know less after receiving negative information, the amount of information we have must actually go down. This obviously cannot happen classically, but let me try to explain why it can happen quantumly."

    4. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, is he your dad?

    5. Re:This is not news by ratnerstar · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You have no sense of humor. Have a nice day!

      --
      Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
    6. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But it does explain why my ears bleed every time I read software API documentation.

    7. Re:This is not news by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      quantum effects can happen classically, they are just extreamly unlikely to do so.

      Now watch me superimpose through the wall.

      --
      Sig
    8. Re:This is not news by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, you hit the gist of where pretty much everyone was going. Good example.

      I think another example would be religions.

      Or the classic Billy Madison line "we are all now stupider for having listened to that" (not sure if I phrased that exactly but it's very close to that).

      But you can look at pretty much anything in society and see this being used all the time. Look at how many people think things like Universal Health Care is bad, Schools need local control, taxes are always bad, paying off national debt isn't important, the media is a left wing conspiracy, nuclear power is bad, republicans are good with money , tax cuts jump start the economy etc etc...

      (if you found a slant in there, well, sorry those are just the common ones going on today and have caused us to have the officials we have while the continue to screw up on the basis of people believing these things)

      People just go with these things, but they would not be able to give you a solid answer as to why, they just hear it so much it sticks. Thats why we have pundents who go on the news and get air time to drive it into peoples heads even more. The more something is said the more it becomes fact even if it has no basis.

      Look at myths and urban legends, people here it something so much for so long they just accept them even if common sense would prove it otherwise.

    9. Re:This is not news by Spudley · · Score: 2, Funny

      1. "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."
      2. "researchers hope to use this to gain deeper insights"

      Hmmm..... I always knew quantum physics was full of contradictions, but putting those two lines together really did make me laugh. :)

      --
      (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    10. Re:This is not news by Alsee · · Score: 1

      2/12/02 Donald Rumsfeld press briefing:
      Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know.

      Physicists analyzing this press breifing estimate it came within 3% of hitting the Rumsfeld limit, the density of negative information sufficient to trigger a critical mass quantum collapse chain reaction and devour the entire earth in a negative information black hole.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    11. Re:This is not news by innerweb · · Score: 1

      It sounds like he is trying to describe Johari Windows to the press. That was first introduced to me almost 20 years ago. That was one cool class.

      InnerWeb

      --
      Freud might say that Intelligent Design is religion's ID.
    12. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you don't make it and get stuck halfway. Have fun trying to pump your blood through concrete! Bitch.

    13. Re:This is not news by a+whoabot · · Score: 1

      The left-wing media thing isn't really so much wrong as it is actually meaningless and just used for identity politics and attacking those identities.

      They just call the media "liberal" and then name their political enemies "liberal." Wether or not their political enemies actual agree with the common views or share the biases of the media or not. Many times even calling them "liberal" when they are sharply at odds with the media.

      This is of advantage because now their political enemies are the big bad guys who victimize them, rather than the other way around. They're the underdogs fighting against this massive liberal propaganda machine. Anyone who opposes them are, of course, "liberals" and, as such, are in ideological and political cahoots with this machine, because it's "liberal" too.

      So it's not wrong, it's just that's it doesn't say anything. The media are liberals. Liberals are the media. We are the conservatives victimized by the media. We are against liberals and only liberals. You are against us, so you are liberal. You victimize us.

      How could you be so blind to evil that you would agree with those that unfairly attack and wage a propaganda war against the conservatives?

    14. Re:This is not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can tell you why universal healthcare is bad. My healthcare costs are low and my health care is fine. I dont give a damn about poor people. If we had universal heathcare, my taxes would be higher and I would have less money for my house, my cars, and my computers. If we just let the weak die we would not need universal healthcare and I would get to keep my money.

    15. Re:This is not news by TurdTapper · · Score: 1

      I feel the same way every time I read the comments on Slashdot articles.
      Sometimes I sit back and think, "I am not dumber for having read this."

      --
      A man with a gun is called a citizen. A man without a gun is called a subject.
    16. Re:This is not news by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      The Billy Madison quote is:

      "Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul."
    17. Re:This is not news by halber_mensch · · Score: 1
      We just concern ourselves with how much there is. So, if we know less after receiving negative information, the amount of information we have must actually go down. This obviously cannot happen classically...

      I disagree. Have you ever watched George W. Bush give a public speech?

      I swear, just listening to that man kills brain cells...

      --
      perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
    18. Re:This is not news by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Could it be that the bogon is the negative information mediator particle?

    19. Re:This is not news by TheLink · · Score: 1

      While it's not suitable for the typical Foxnews devotee, what's wrong with that statement?

      That statement isn't dense[1]. However seems like most people are.

      [1] Whether in positive or negative information.

      --
    20. Re:This is not news by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If we just let the weak die we would not need universal healthcare

      Now here is someone who is TRULY at peace with the reality of nature and its environment, and understands it clearly. You are a true environmentalist.

    21. Re:This is not news by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Now more than ever, is there a truth we can know? Both sides of the political spectrum are flaming liars (there's a difference between spin and not telling the factual truth, in spite of what politicians would have you believe), is it possible to learn the truth of whatever matters today from their mouths?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    22. Re:This is not news by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      But you can look at pretty much anything in society and see this being used all the time. Look at how many people think things like Universal Health Care is bad,

      No telling one member of society what he may charge for his services is bad. Another name for it is slavery. Unfortunately, that is a hidden prerequisite of nearly all the Universal Health Care packages.

      Schools need local control,

      This is because people in different locals have different values. Unfortunately, schools have extended far beyone simply teaching "reading, writing, and 'rithmtic'", and have crossed over more into indoctrination. Local control at least provides some means for various doctrines to be indoctrinated.

      taxes are always bad,

      This is just silly. Everyone knows that it is great for the tax collector.

      paying off national debt isn't important,

      Noboby says that. The argument is that it isn't worth wrecking the economy (or harpooning the next election cycle.)

      the media is a left wing conspiracy,

      Not nearly cohesive enough to be a conspiracy, just left wing.

      nuclear power is bad,

      Are you saying it isn't? The intelligent arguments hinge on whether the deadly wastes can be contained competently. At best, nuclear is simply considered better than the other alternatives.

      republicans are good with money

      Just got my paperwork from last years tax cycle to send in (I'm filing late). The Republicans seem to be doing a good job of handling a lot more of my money than I'd like.

      tax cuts jump start the economy etc etc...

      If the econonmy is a consumer economy, how could it hurt?

      Thanks for proving the point of the article, Mr. Madison.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  2. nope by cain · · Score: 3, Funny

    No it can't.

    1. Re:nope by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 1

      I feel dumber for having read your post.

      Although, this just goes to prove the point I always made when I was sitting through mind numbingly boring lectures given by stupid people in the past... "i feel dumber for having sat through that". Now I knot that I wasn't just imagining it!

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
  3. Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority... by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    I've been studying negative information for years. I consider myself somewhat of an expert on the subject, actually.

    Initially, I believed that negative information was an abstract math concept, but after a significant amount of additional study I've determined rather conclusively that it exists in our frame of reference and that the effects are actually easy to detect. The trick is to *locate* some of this negative information. Fortunately, I've managed to work that out as well -- I'm not publishing for a few months yet, but I figure I'm far enough along to spill some of the beans:

    Experiencing negative inforamtion is all about occupying a point in space and time which intersects with the negative information stream. This was initially tricky, but through months of tireless research I've worked out the optimal conditions: I find that your best chance of encountering it is roughly around 1 AM when you're at the bar with your friends after a long night of drinking and one of them says something along the lines of, "Awright! Time for some shots!"

    Bang! Negative information. What happened after that? How did I get home? All lost in the quantum flow, never to be accurately described by anyone involved (except, occasionally and for reasons I still haven't managed to factor into my equations, the bouncer and the police). I assume the headaches and liver damage are just a nominal side effect.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  4. I already knew this by 77Punker · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less. Sounds like what happened in that mind numbing English class I had to take last semester.

    1. Re:I already knew this by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      That would be my 2nd year Spanish class. My midget-teacher made me forget what I knew, plus I gained a horrible Oakie accent from making fun of my classmates.

    2. Re:I already knew this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "Okie."

      You bigot.

    3. Re:I already knew this by 77Punker · · Score: 1

      Mine never lectured on subject matter; he instead decided it was better to use the time as a forum for his political views. I disagreed with him often and whenever I cornered him on his faulty politics (quite often), he'd change the subject. He got an intellectual ass kicking and my parents had their money wasted since I learned nothing about English since he didn't lecture on topic.

  5. when you asked me to take the trash out by mrsbrisby · · Score: 3, Funny

    it was negative information so I forgot how to get my socks in the dirty clothes.

  6. True by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 5, Funny

    After trying to read those articles, I do feel like I know less.

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
    1. Re:True by SlashEdsDoYourJobs · · Score: 1

      Don't be so negative!

    2. Re:True by Gyarados · · Score: 1

      It would be easier to understand if they didn't make a nonsensical analogy between information in the context of quantum mechanics, and information in the context of human memories.

      *SMACK!* Stop trying to make quantum mechanics cool, and make me multicoloured cola!

    3. Re:True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See? That's why smart slashdot readers never bother reading TFA.

  7. File not Found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    404-File Not Found
    Now THAT'S negative quantum... information.

    1. Re:File not Found by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Actually, that wouldn't be negative information at all... You would be gaining the knowledge that nothing exists in that location.

      --
      Love sees no species.
    2. Re:File not Found by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Negative information would be refreshing and getting the page to begin loading, but never finishing.

      --
      Sig
    3. Re:File not Found by rkrabath · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would be zero information.

      negatve information would be reloading the page, it not coming back, and then forgetting which page you reloaded or what was on it.

      --
      Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
    4. Re:File not Found by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Damn, that actually happens to me.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  8. What next, negative intelligence? by Zarel · · Score: 2, Funny

    Considering some of the posters here, I wouldn't be surprised if that were discovered.

    --
    Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    1. Re:What next, negative intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post is definitely proves the concept of negative humor.

    2. Re:What next, negative intelligence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, we have to get people to discover negative denial. This might take awhile...

  9. negative information! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    somebody must have commented some negative information here because I don't see anything!

  10. kind of like /. comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sometimes after reading /. comments i feel like i know less.

  11. Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this is the answer to a previous Slashdot article about why public education in the US is bad.

  12. -5: interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fp

  13. When I was in high school by multiplexo · · Score: 4, Funny
    a friend and I used to joke that there were people who gave off destructive mental interference waves. Sitting next to these people would result in a decrease in brain function because their brainwaves were 180 degrees out of phase than the brainwaves of normal people, thus cancelling them out and creating a thought-free zone.

    Of course negative information is cool, but it would be even cooler if you could combine negative information and positive information to produce a huge explosion.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    1. Re:When I was in high school by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Funny
      a friend and I used to joke that there were people who gave off destructive mental interference waves. Sitting next to these people would result in a decrease in brain function

      Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but back when I was in high school we called these people "girls".

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:When I was in high school by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 1
      Of course negative information is cool, but it would be even cooler if you could combine negative information and positive information to produce a huge explosion.

      Who says it doesn't? You may have inadvertantly figured out what causes spontaneous combustion.

    3. Re:When I was in high school by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 5, Funny
      Maybe things have changed in the last 10 years, but back when I was in high school we called these people "girls".

      Actually, proximity to girls caused higher brain functions to be transferred to an area just below the waist. You could still technically think, but it was limited in scope.

    4. Re:When I was in high school by Cutterex · · Score: 4, Funny

      "By looking at the 3D map, you can see an unmistakable cone of ignorance."

    5. Re:When I was in high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you could combine negative information and positive information to produce a huge explosion.

      Unfortunately, the only thing this combination has ever produced based on my studies, are politicians, used car salesmen, and of course, SCO.

    6. Re:When I was in high school by QuantaStarFire · · Score: 1

      Put it away! Put it away!

    7. Re:When I was in high school by Virak · · Score: 1

      Really? We used to call them "people".

    8. Re:When I was in high school by TeknoHog · · Score: 3, Funny
      We used to call them "people".

      Muggles.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    9. Re:When I was in high school by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

      Bogodynamics
      Well lets see - what you are experiencing is a large quantum bogodynamic field being emitted from various people. Probably in the order of several microLenat's

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    10. Re:When I was in high school by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

      Same here, sort of. I tell people who are acting dumb to go away of i will lose more IQ points because the stupid gradient is far too high. They usually give me a weird look and walk away. Go figure.

      --
      I am Spartacus
    11. Re:When I was in high school by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 1

      That sounds like the pre-quantum wave theory equivalent of the bogon flux. (It's applied more generally now that we understand more about the underlying quantum nature of the bogon, and the fact that they only act like waves when observed in particular ways.)

      --
      If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    12. Re:When I was in high school by kureido · · Score: 1

      Actually, proximity to girls caused higher brain functions to be transferred to an area just below the waist. You could still technically think, but it was limited in scope.

      Robin Williams described this phenomenon well: "God gave men a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to work one at a time."

    13. Re:When I was in high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, Leave the Republicans alone already.

      First there was no global warming, now, there's "Creationism". Without BS where would these guys be?

    14. Re:When I was in high school by TheoMurpse · · Score: 1

      combine negative information and positive information to produce a huge explosion.

      To a certain extent, would that be like when pro-life and pro-choice people meet -- a huge explosion? Or Republicrats and Democans? Or Windows- and Linux-zealots?

    15. Re:When I was in high school by Intocabile · · Score: 1

      They don't do jokes like that anymore :(

    16. Re:When I was in high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lady friend calls this "the switching of the heads."

    17. Re:When I was in high school by macwise77 · · Score: 1
      people who gave off destructive mental interference waves
      Well, I am in college right now, and I am learning about precisely the same thing in science, only having to do with light waves and their destructive and constructive interference instead. (this because I am going to the best photography school in the nation).

      What do you know but the instructor fits this profile right down to the pocket protector. Not only does he cause destructive interference in direct proportion to the level of comprehension necessary to grasp what he is teaching, but when you ask questions to gain some clarity on the matter, he then transmogrifies into a flat and transparent medium (similar to a piece of flat glass) and refracts the question to some unknown point in space.

      So I really can leave his class knowing less. And I thought I was just being funny.
      --
      Don't you hate people who always repeat themselves and are long-winded and overly redundant and talk too much?
    18. Re:When I was in high school by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1
      they only act like waves when observed in particular ways


      But do they act like particles if observed in wavy ways?
      --
      Free as in mason.
    19. Re:When I was in high school by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Simpsons had this whole "negative information" right:

      Homer - Marge, remember when I took that home wine-brewing class and forgot how to drive?

      Marge - You were drunk!

  14. (-2)+(-3)=+1 by djupedal · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    So, if two people tell me negative information, I'll know more?

    1. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Persol · · Score: 5, Funny

      (-2)+(-3)=+1

      I think you've hit the lower limit already....

    2. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (-2)+(-3)= -5

      Looks like they already got to you

    3. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by r2tincan · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be -5? :/

      --
      "Lead my skeptic sight."
    4. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 4, Funny

      (-2)+(-3)=+1

      You have obviously received a lot of negative information before you started writing this 'math'.

      --
      No sig today.
    5. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Punboy · · Score: 1

      He confused his addition with multiplication.

      (-2)(-3) = 6
      (-2) + (-3) = -5

      --
      If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
    6. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Ummm...

      (-2)+(-3)=

      -5 ...you'll just know far less.

      Now, if two people containing negative information multiply...

      (-2)*(-3)

      The result is positive. +6.

      This provides a ray of hope for the observation that, "only stupid people are breeding", as noted by the famous song (not that famous, I guess. Cannot recall the song or artist). Eventually, things will come full circle.

    7. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Harvey Danger - Flagpole Sitta

      Memory loss due to negative information?

    8. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by koreaman · · Score: 0

      Flagpole Sitta -- Harvey Danger
      hope this helps.

    9. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by mcc · · Score: 1

      You have obviously received a lot of negative information before you started writing this 'math'.

      Either that or he is working in the modular arithmetic group of order 6.

      But that isn't even a field, so I don't know why he'd be doing that.

    10. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by MSG · · Score: 2, Informative

      ... or, more likely, with his subtraction:

      (-2) - (-3) = 1

    11. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by kscguru · · Score: 4, Funny
      So, if two people tell me negative information, I'll know more?

      Depends on what you're doing. (-2)+(-3)=+1 is Slashdot Moderator Math, which has no basis in either reality or fantasy and transmits no useful information whatsoever.

      --

      A witty [sig] proves nothing. --Voltaire

    12. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody's in an intro crypto course! Look out, people coming out of those sometimes think they actually know the first thing about math...please don't be one of them.

    13. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had the math right, you'd already know the answer.

      (-2)-(-3)=+1

      It's subtraction, not addition.

      Therefore, if someone takes negative information from you -- which is clearly the same, intellectually, as giving out negative information to others -- you get positive information.

      Usually, the positive information comes in the form of corrections from those who know better or who have spotted your silly errors.

      Humans... always complicating things...

    14. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or he could have *taken* a crypto course... or even better, an algebra course....

      please don't tell me that your one of those people who refer to group theory as 'math'.. i'm pretty sure it's called algebra.

    15. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by ndansmith · · Score: 1

      (-2)+(-3)=+1
      if and only if
      2+2=5

    16. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about

      (.)+(.) = :-)

    17. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by rkrabath · · Score: 1

      I believe I've heard that in a few songs.

      1) Flagpole Sitter by Harvey Danger
      2) Idiot America by Rancid
      3) something by sum41

      90% sure on #1, 70% on 2, 3 is a guess.

      Am I right?

      --
      Who do I have to blackmail to get some representation around here!?!?!?!?
    18. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let a = b
      a + a = a + b
      2a = a + b
      2a - 2b = a - b
      log(2a - 2b) = log(a - b)
      log(2(a-b)) = log(a - b)
      log(2) + log(a - b) = log(a - b)
      log(2) = 0
      10^0 = 2
      1=2

      ~Christopher Edwards

    19. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Entropy248 · · Score: 1

      I think if I can take away negative imformation that I'll know more than I did in the first place. I wonder about the uncertainty principle now...

    20. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by pentalive · · Score: 1

      My HP calculator tells me:

      2 chs enter 3 chs + negative 5

      If two people tell you negative information, you know even less than if you had only listened to one or the other.

    21. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by djupedal · · Score: 1

      (-2)+(-3)=+1 is Slashdot Moderator Math

      finally...I knew someone would get the joke :)

    22. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by multiplexo · · Score: 1
      2 chs enter 3 chs + negative 5

      Yeah, but HP calculators went straight to shit after Carly took over the company. Now for veracity you need to find out what a cunningly constructed PERL script will tell you the answer is.

      --
      cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
    23. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by pentalive · · Score: 1

      HA! I've got a "pre-Carly" calculator! an HP-25 (not the C version that came later) Programmable with 49 steps and the numbers glow a nice red color! :^)

      perl -e "print -2 + -3"
      -5
      but it's not high on the cunning scale...

    24. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by wootest · · Score: 1

      (-2)+(-3)=+1 is Slashdot Moderator Math, which has no basis in either reality or fantasy and transmits no useful information whatsoever.

      One word: Bistromathics.

    25. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Baal+Sebub · · Score: 1
      2+2=5

      for sufficiently high values of 2

      --
      120 chars are not enough for a signature. I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to c
    26. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was NOFX rather than SUM 41 I think from the song The Idiots are Taking Over

    27. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no.... multiply to lots of negative information doesn't give positive either just a headache.

    28. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mldular arithmetic group or order 2 would do it, and that is a field.

    29. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me try that again:

      The modular arithmetic group of order 2 would do it, and that is a field.

      (Where -3=1, -2=0, etc)

    30. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by mcc · · Score: 1

      Good call. I didn't think of that.

    31. Re:(-2)+(-3)=+1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yay go me *proud*

      (I don't know much about maths, but I know it is what I want to do for the rest of my life [I'm just 17 atm])

  15. That's Intuitive by AdroitOneX · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    I experience this almost everytime I speak to my boss.

    1. Re:That's Intuitive by baylanger · · Score: 1

      It does get worse the higher in the company you go!

  16. Nothing new here... by gatekeep · · Score: 1

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."

    This is nothing new, the effect is known as 'the dumbening.' It can be easily reproduced in the home by watching Harold & Kumar go to White Castle. Watch that movie, and I guarantee you'll know less!

  17. Guh! by HawaiianMayan · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Have you never heard of Entertainment Weekly? It must be full of negative quantum information, because reading it definitely make you dumber.

  18. Affects black holes! by sconeu · · Score: 4, Interesting


    Since a black hole's entropy is directly proportional to it's information content, this, if true, would have an effect on black holes.

    If I recall correctly (and I may not -- my physics isn't what it used to be), the amount of information contained by a black hole is directly proportional to its surface area -- specifically, I believe that the total number of bits contained is equal to 1/4 of its surface area as measured in Planck units.

    Now, if information can be negative, that would provide another method of shrinking a black hole, in addition to Hawking radiation.

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    1. Re:Affects black holes! by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      the amount of information contained by a black hole is directly proportional to its surface area

      I didn't cover black holes in much detail, but that certianly makes sense - the surface area of a black hole would be proportional to its mass, which in turn is a function of the amount of mass it's captured, and mass capture would be the way that it captured information. (Where for the purposes of this discussion (and most discussions of this sort :-) ), mass and energy are interchangeable - so captured photons contribute to the mass)

      Therefore, it seems reasonable to this ex-physicist that the information content of a black hole would be proportional to its surface area. But like I said, we barely touched on black holes on my course.

    2. Re:Affects black holes! by sconeu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Lee Smolin discusses this in Three Roads to Quantum Gravity, as well as its relationship to the Beckenstein Bound.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Affects black holes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nice sig but

      People who need govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in it.

      carries 100% of the information as

      People who need govt to enforce their religion must not have much faith in it. Or else they wouldn't need govt to do so.

      I think.

    4. Re:Affects black holes! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I really get annoyed when the map is presented as the territory. Nothing personal, just your wording mirrors the common presentation by journalists in articles, and it really annoys me.

      "Since a black hole's entropy is directly proportional to it's information content, this, if true, would have an effect on black holes."

      Affects our understanding of black holes.

      "Now, if information can be negative, that would provide another method of shrinking a black hole, in addition to Hawking radiation."

      It wouldn't produce another method; if true, another method already existed. Sometimes people talk as if at the moment of discovery something became possible that was physically impossible before.

    5. Re:Affects black holes! by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      >in addition to Hawking radiation.
      Hawking doesn't have any radiation. He is so negatively charming that doors in the shopping malls won't open for him.

    6. Re:Affects black holes! by Itchy+Rich · · Score: 1

      My physics isn't what it used to be either, but what I understood from the article makes me think that you'd have to send particles into the Black Hole before you were able to do this "negative information" operation. So if it did have an effect, you would've had to increase the size before you decreased it.

  19. Sounds Familiar... by r2tincan · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf was a quantum physisist.

    --
    "Lead my skeptic sight."
  20. Finally, an explanation for... by currivan · · Score: 1

    Finally, an explanation for those John 3:16 signs.

  21. Ouch! by Eightyford · · Score: 1

    "In the quantum world, there are things we just cannot know, no matter how clever we are. For example, we cannot know both the position and momentum of a small particle exactly. One can also have situations where someone knows more than everything. This is known as quantum 'entanglement', and when two people share entanglement, there can be negative information. "

    My brain hurts!

    1. Re:Ouch! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Mine does not. I processed all of it and I call the whole thing incorrect. Seriously, negative mass may (or may not) exist, but negative information is false on its face.

    2. Re:Ouch! by glowworm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAQM (I am not a quantum mechanic) but lets say you know a set of information about something and someone else knows a different set of information about the same thing and together these sets of information add up to more information than is actually needed to describe that something then it stands to reason there is also a third set of information that is negative, that is, it describes what you shouldn't know about something in order to be able to describe it properly!

      The phone digit analogy used in Oppenheim's homepage is pretty good. If Bob knows 15 digits of Alices 10 digit phone number then Alice needs to tell Bob that 5 digits with a certain configuration are not needed - and in doing so makes future communications about telephone numbers easier!

      --
      Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
    3. Re:Ouch! by Eightyford · · Score: 1

      Thanks! That was some great positive information!

    4. Re:Ouch! by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      The act of measuring the momentum to a large degree of accuracy changes the position of the particle.

      The same is true for the reverse.

      If you want to measure both, then you must accept significant error in both measurements.

      There's a formula giving the exact relationship, but unfortunately I don't remember it.

  22. One needs only two.... by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1

    letters; T and V, in that order.

    --
    try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    1. Re:One needs only two.... by goldberry · · Score: 1

      For most TV I would agree with you, but (as I keep trying to convince my boyfriend) there *are* intelligent programs out there if you know where to look. Most things I've seen on both the History and Discovery channels, for instance, have definitely been positive information. Even kids' programs, when watched in an unfamiliar language, can be highly enlightening. I was home sick from middle school one day and learned the word "yellow" in Spanish ("amarillo") while watching a Spanish equivalent of Sesame Street. While one must wade through an astonishing volume of crap to find worthwhile viewing material on television these days, I maintain that it is entirely possible for an intelligent person to watch intelligent TV.

      --
      But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
  23. If I tell you negative information, you'll know less. Apparently, researchers hope to use this to gain deeper insights into

    So less really is more?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Um... by jdwoods · · Score: 1
      The man-page for less(1) begins:
      less - opposite of more
      --
      -- Jeff Woods
    2. Re:Um... by aled · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, man pages, the ultimate example of negative information.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  24. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if incorrect knowledge can be considered as negative knowledge. For example, if I believe that the Earth is flat, I might actually be worse of compared to having no idea what the shape of the Earth is. That's because if I base certain designs on my incorrect assumption that the Earth is flat, I might actually get in trouble.

    1. Re:I wonder... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The article calls this a measurement of the quality of the information, which they say has no bearing on the quantity. The thing about quantum information is that due to the fact that the amount of information contained can lessen by measuring the information, it is actually possible to know more about a quantum object than actually describes it. Think of it more like looking at a comet in space. You can learn more about it by hitting it with explosives and measuring the spectral result, but in doing so you are actually destroying bits of the comet. So eventually, you can know all about an object that doesn't actually exist. Of course, unlike comets, quantum objects can be both there and not there at the same time; the time factor of it being destroyed after it has been measured is effectively removed.

  25. Two questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Does negative information want to be free?

    And secondly, er, I used to know the second question, dunno what happened there.

  26. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by Eightyford · · Score: 1

    Heh, and here I was all excited to hear about some breakthrough science, when negative information is nothing more than my brain trying to forget all the uglies.

  27. Don't click on the 5th link! by EvanED · · Score: 1

    It's got negative information in it!

  28. Bad Analogy by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    I don't think that really works. You can't make someone know less by just telling them something, unless by doing so you somehow alter their brain chemistry to store less information or remove information already stored. I suspect this might be closer to the quantum idea.

    Suppose you have two pieces of quantum information, one positive and one negative. The negative piece could negate the positive one which would result in 0 total pieces of information instead of 2.

    However, the idea of this negative information is still kind of abstract and not that easy to understand. The quantum nature of this is key I think. It doesn't look like it extends that well to our concept of information (which would be the kind stored by the brain), at least not yet.

    1. Re:Bad Analogy by steelfood · · Score: 1

      The abstract says all:

      If the partial information is positive, its sender needs to communicate this number of quantum bits to the receiver; if it is negative, the sender and receiver instead gain the corresponding potential for future quantum communication.

      At risk of oversimplifying, negative information is information that is not known, but soon will be. It's not unlike what we would think of as a prediction, or more accurately, a premonition.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    2. Re:Bad Analogy by jacen_sunstrider · · Score: 1

      How about this: you thought that the pythagoreum theorem was a^2+b^2+c^2=d^2 (obviously incorrect). Later, you're told that it's actually simply a^2+b^2=c^2. This takes less physical memory in place of the wrong equation, and there's no reason to retain the knowledge of that incorrect equation. Therefore, the information of the correct theorem is negative information; you physically know less information when quantized.

      that's all BS, but it might be correct BS

    3. Re:Bad Analogy by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like a prepaid phone to me...

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    4. Re:Bad Analogy by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      but maybe it could happen every day, lets say.

      I know 1+1=2, what if someone convinced me 1+1 infact made 3? Surely I would know less information no?

      --
      I like muppets.
    5. Re:Bad Analogy by Binestar · · Score: 1

      you physically know less information when quantized.

      Except you also now know that you were incorrect with your initial thought. So adding negative information in that regard increases your total information.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    6. Re:Bad Analogy by themoodykid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ah, so it's all about known knowns and known unknowns? They should consult with Donald Rumsfeld on this!

    7. Re:Bad Analogy by bhaberman · · Score: 1

      Interestingly enough, this is the exact form of the pythagorean theorem in 3-space, where a, b, and c are the lengths of the sides of a rectangle, and d is the length of its diagonal. In fact, this formula generalizes to n dimensions, and defines what is known as the Euclidean 2-norm.

    8. Re:Bad Analogy by aeoo · · Score: 1
      I don't think that really works. You can't make someone know less by just telling them something, unless by doing so you somehow alter their brain chemistry to store less information or remove information already stored.


      You can tell lies/misinformation.
    9. Re:Bad Analogy by sharkdba · · Score: 1

      Suppose you have two pieces of quantum information, one positive and one negative. The negative piece could negate the positive one which would result in 0 total pieces of information instead of 2.

      So we're talking a perfect eraser/formatter here? Just send a 120Gigs (or whatever your capacity is) of anti-information to your HD and it's like new.

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    10. Re:Bad Analogy by srleffler · · Score: 1
      I don't think that really works. You can't make someone know less by just telling them something,

      No, not really. The article writer has written a bit of exaggerated fluff to give a general audience a flavor of what this new discovery means. Most science reporting works this way. Presumably it does work with atoms and other simple systems: you can store information in a simple system and "remove" some of it by transferring "negative information" into the system.

    11. Re:Bad Analogy by ptarjan · · Score: 1

      It is possible to remove information that existed.

      Say, you were a psychic and you knew I had $55 in my wallet. Then I come along and show you my wallet without you even asking. You now can't tout your psychic abilities because you clasically now know about the $55. I think by that act of me showing you, I reduced your information.

      Just my interpretation.

    12. Re:Bad Analogy by Lil-Bondy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      so, therefor, if we know negative information, it leads to (the possibility of*) knowing more? *could we perhaps die or something before we learnt the resulting information

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
    13. Re:Bad Analogy by martyn+s · · Score: 1

      I believe you mean "rectangular prism". Rectangle would be the pythagorean in 2D space.

    14. Re:Bad Analogy by bentcd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this may be close, but inaccurate. It doesn't reduce the psychic's information (unless he didn't know he was a psychic), but rather the information in the system.
      Let's say there exists a person, Alfred, who is a psychic. Nobody knows he is a psychic (except perhaps himself), but he is. He is approached by Bill, who has Â$55 in his wallet. Alfred senses the $55. There is now information in the system that "Alfred is a psychic" because if he tells Bill about the $55 without Bill showing them to him first, Bill will know that Alfred is a psychic.
      Before this can happen, however, Bill shows Alfred the contents of his wallet. If Alfred now tells Bill about the $55, Bill will not be impressed and will have no reason to believe that Alfred is a psychic. So by opening his wallet, Bill removed information from the system. The system in this case being Alfred and Bill.
      (Of course, they really should be handling this experiment in a proper, scientific manner before anyone went out and pronounced Alfred a psychic, but the point remains the same.)

      --
      sigs are hazardous to your health
    15. Re:Bad Analogy by BananaPeel · · Score: 1

      This makes me think about languages. I only seem to be able to keep two to three languages in my head at any one time...whenever I learn a new one I do so at the expense of an old one. Even learning bits of a new language seriously degrades the use of the old language. Maybe the problem is that the stored information does not just describe the information itself but also describes part of a larger picture. Removing some of the bits eventually degrades that picture beyond recognition. You may still have some of the information but it's overall menaing has been lost...a bit like this post really

    16. Re:Bad Analogy by RyanLauck · · Score: 1

      IANAQP*, but the understanding I pulled from the article was that it's more like this: I know ten letters of a message (HWEXLYLZO), you send me negative information in the form of four letters (WXYZ). Now, I know less information (HELLO) but I have the full message which is six letters. (I Am Not A Quantum Physicist)

    17. Re:Bad Analogy by Eil · · Score: 1


      I don't think that really works. You can't make someone know less by just telling them something.

      From TFA: "This obviously cannot happen classically, but let me try to explain why it can happen quantumly."

    18. Re:Bad Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't make someone know less by just telling them something

      It's called religion.

    19. Re:Bad Analogy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative information - Because of the gap between truth and knowledge, vis. truth of the world vs. truth of the mind, positive information may be viewed as information causing these two truthes to become aligned, while negative information would cause them to become further apart.

        For example, if someone told you there was a great fishing spot over by those reeds over there, so you go and catch a lot of fish.. positive information! If there are no fish, negative information!

        It seems the new physics (quantum..) is trying to build a science on the truth of the mind, which is arguably more visible than the truth of the world, and so they build in uncertainty and probability to facilitate prediction of the truth of the world.

      But the truth of the world is FIXED (in the real/measurable sense), while our point of view is un-certain.

      Sometimes I question building our science on our side of the fence.

  29. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 am?! wtf did your mommy call you on your mobile to come home or what?!

  30. Negative Information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    You should try browsing at -1 sometime! You'll wish you knew less...

    1. Re:Negative Information by pogson · · Score: 1
      Timothy wrote:"If I tell you negative information, you'll know less"

      I disagree. If you tell me negative information, I know you are lying, assuming there are a few fragments of positive information rattling around.

      --
      A problem is an opportunity http://mrpogson.com
    2. Re:Negative Information by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      OH, so you and timmy have entangled???

  31. Pah.. old news. by Ligur · · Score: 1

    My girlfriend fed me negative information for years. Then she broke up with me because I couldn't remember her name! What a bitch!

    --
    Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast.
  32. Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    This article is not bogus.

    The concept of a "quantum eraser" is not a new one. Consider the classic double-slit experiment, where electrons are shot at a double slit and form an interference pattern on a screen which corresponds to the probability distribution of the particle's position. If you were to place detectors so that you knew which slit the particle went through, the interference pattern would disappear-- that is, there would be no uncertainty in the position (because obviously, you know which slit it went through). This is intuitive if you consider the interference pattern to be a probability distribution.

    However, if you were to place a 50/50 beam splitter in front of the detectors, the interference pattern would reappear! By destryong the which-path information, the interference pattern (uncertainty) is restored. Bizarre, but true.

    Google "quantum eraser" for more info.

    1. Re:Yes it can by VernonNemitz · · Score: 1

      I bet it might make a REALLY good encryption trick, too!

    2. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you were to place detectors so that you knew which slit the particle went through, the interference pattern would disappear-- that is, there would be no uncertainty in the position

      Sounds like BS to me. How are the slits not detectors? Anything the particle interacts with in it's path is a "detector". The more I read stuff like this, and the longer we go without any real engineering based on it, the more I think some "researcher" is spending his NSF grant on the crack he's smoking.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    3. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like BS to me. How are the slits not detectors? Anything the particle interacts with in it's path is a "detector". The more I read stuff like this, and the longer we go without any real engineering based on it, the more I think some "researcher" is spending his NSF grant on the crack he's smoking.

      You clearly know nothing about quantum mechanics. The slit is not a detector because, put simply, it does not detect anything. The whole point of the double slit experiment was to show that if there are two slits, there is some uncertainty as to which one the particle went through. This is due to the interference of the wavefunctions.

      Before you accuse others of BSing, learn some quantum physics. It's quite interesting.

    4. Re:Yes it can by bgog · · Score: 1

      This can be proved experimentally. Not only that but there are quantum encryption products that rely on this simple fact.

      http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1130877,00.as p

      http://www.bbn.com/For_Government_Customers/Networ king/Quantum_Cryptography.html

    5. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      The double slit experiment involves photons, not electrons.

      Other than that you've taken a fairly simple experiment and explained it in such a manner that no one will be able to understand it.

      The paradox can be very simply explained to the lay person.

      The question to be resolved was, "Is light (photons) a particle or wave function?" In lay terms, does light travel in a straight line or in waves?

      It turned out that if one tested for particles, one got results consistent with particles. On the other hand, if one tested for waves one got results consistent for wave functions.

      In lay terms, this was a Major Mind Fuck for the scientific community. Theoretically particles either travelled in straight lines or in waves but not both. And certainly not based on the testing method.

      What is ultimately uncovered is an even greater and far more interesting question: How can the results of a controlled experiment be affected by the observer?

      Goggle the Internet for more info ;-)

    6. Re:Yes it can by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap man! Could you possibly demonstrate any more ignorance? (Well, maybe you voted for Bush:))

      Politics aside, you keep using the word "detector", I don't think it means what you think it means.

      They're talking about things like photomultiplies, etc. A slit is not a photo multiplier, it is the hole in the article that gives the photon a path to the photomultiplier located further along in the experiment. Usually, photomultipliers are placed where one suspects light will come out. However, light gets really funky when you start trying to guess where it's going to come out.

      If you're at all interested in how the world around you works, you might enjoy reading into this. If you're not interested, there are times I've envied your ignorance.

    7. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop being such a cock. His 'BS' statement is a bit out of order but his first point about the slit being a 'detector' is an interesting one, if you have a clue what he means.

      His point is, the slit has an effect on the photon, therefore the photon must have an effect on the slit (well, the edges of the slit). That means the slit can 'detect' the photon and therefore is a 'detector'. At the quantum mechanical level, there is no difference between a piece of metal with a hole in it and a photomultiplier. Just because theres a scientist connected to the end of the photomultiplier doesn't make a difference.

      Pretty dumb of you to call him ignorant, the manner in which you totally misunderstood the parent's point suggests he probably understands QM better then you. I'm going to guess you've read a couple of coffee-table science books and like to pretend you understand QM, but you don't actually really understand it.

    8. Re:Yes it can by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 1

      Quantum stuff is not sane. Even remotely.

      Things that sound like BS are actually true at the quantum level... There's also an effect-before-cause thing that I was told about once, but can't remember the details.

    9. Re:Yes it can by fimbulvetr · · Score: 0

      Lemme guess, you're a god with QM. You understand it completely. Nothing escapes you. That certainly qualifies you to put me into the "armchair" qm category.

      Shit, come back when you grow some balls, pussy.

    10. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      > The double slit experiment involves photons, not electrons.

      1) The experiment works with photons or electrons. The latter is more related to the experiment's most recent significance (re: the implications for quantum mechanics).

      > The paradox can be very simply explained to the lay person.

      2) Your ability to be trusted as an authority died per point 1), and the carcass is beaten by your subsequent ramblings.

      > It turned out that if one tested for particles, one got results
      > consistent with particles. On the other hand, if one tested for
      > waves one got results consistent for wave functions.

      3) Uh... speaking of a vague explanation that misses the point. Simply put: no. The experiment shows that what we thought of as "particles" exhibit wave-like properties, meaning that the "particle" model did not fully describe the nature of matter at a certain scale.

      > What is ultimately uncovered is an even greater and far more interesting
      > question: How can the results of a controlled experiment be affected by the
      > observer?

      4) This must be the #1 held misconception about physics. NO. What is ultimately uncovered is that there is no way to predict individual particle paths (observation notwithstanding) -- that a particle's characteristics (location & momentum) are (at best) described in terms of probability and are not individually predictable -- that existence is a big sea of probabilities and not certainties. The slit experiment represents empirical verification of that model of the (quantum-scale) universe.

      > Goggle the Internet for more info ;-)

      5) Yes, please do.

    11. Re:Yes it can by RicktheBrick · · Score: 1

      If we use super nova explosion as the light source and two huge galaxy clusters as the slits then we can supposedly control how the light was transmitted from the explosion even though it occurred billions of years ago and trillion of miles from us. Truly beyond what we can now comprehend.

    12. Re:Yes it can by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1
      Ow my fucking head you prick!!! Arrrrggghh!!! It's like thinking about infinity, only.... AArrrrggghhh!!!

      //thanks for the link. Maddening as it may be to comprehend. Bookmarked

    13. Re:Yes it can by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I can see a new arms race developing, to create a bomb which when exploded turns your enemy into cavemen. Oh, and I wish to claim patent rights on this before Amazon does. I think I'll call it the 'one-click makes your enemy stoopid' business process.

    14. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1

      I know more than you think - I just disagree. Conceptually, it's a load of rubbish. It only works if you can arbitrarily designate some objects "observers" which collapse wavestates, but others as not.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    15. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1

      From the details that have been released, this "quantum encryption" isn't quantum entanglement, but merely a very dim light. But in any case secret technology with unpublished operating principles isn't very convincing.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    16. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow thank you be being so insulting, you week-old pile of worm-infested weasel droppings.

      The claim made is that if you pu a detector on on of the slits, to record which way the photon goes, it changes the results. The implied claim is that some observer effect collapses the uncertainty. You don't get to go around arbitrarily designating some objects observers and others not just to make your theory consistant! The phenomena is quite interesting, but let's get a theory that makes sense without this "observer" magic.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    17. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1

      The time-traveling positron explanation for the phenonenon where a photon breifly, spontaneously, becomes an electron-positron pair, which then collide and emit a photon (not exactly any of the diagrams in figure 63, but along the same lines as (c)) seems to conflict with Hawking's proposal for manner in which black holes expire. For Hawking radiation to work, one element of the electron-positron pair crosses the event horizon, allowing the other to "go free", effectively becoming radiation from the black hole.

      If there's only one particle, travelling in a circle through time, how does this work? Please enlighten the class with your great wisdom!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Yes it can by Lil-Bondy · · Score: 0

      geez, and you thought infinity was hard... you know, there are numbers above infinite...

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. - HHGTTG
    19. Re:Yes it can by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Actually, this is shown to physics students in labs.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    20. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      His point is, the slit has an effect on the photon, therefore the photon must have an effect on the slit (well, the edges of the slit). That means the slit can 'detect' the photon and therefore is a 'detector'

      This really sounds like an arguement over semantics. You ask someone who works with this stuff, to point to the detector, he's going to point to the detector. If you ask him to point to the slit, guess what hes gonna point at. Id really say for something to qualify as a detector in this situation, it would have to let you know precisely what it detected, in a computer readable format. Unfortunately, a slit in a piece of paper does not qualify.

    21. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not that hard to do this experiment yourself, I did it in highschool. Why don't you just give it a try?

    22. Re:Yes it can by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Go ahead. People are aware of the problem you've described. It still does not change the fact that we are able to apply methodically QM to the real world and describe the world quite accurately, earning real dollars in the process.

      Instead of spending time on Slashdot calling BS things which are not, sit on your ass and try to come up with a decent theory of quantum measurement.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    23. Re:Yes it can by kjots · · Score: 1

      In order for something to be considered an observer, it must have an informational state that can be changed by the information being received from the object being observed. In order to extract any meaningful data about the object being observed, the information being received must be both proportional to and consistant with the informational state of the object being observed, and must change proportionaly to and consistantly with any change to the informational state of the object being observed.

      Do the slits in the double-slip expetiment have an informational state that is changed by the passage of a photon through a slit? Does such a change in the slit's informational state lead to a change in the manner in which the slit will interact with a photon in the future? Can you think of a third question to nicely round off this paragraph?

      Also, as an aside, it is impossible for anything to directly observe itself. Any information an object receives from itself would change it's own informational state, rendering any information it has of itself obsolete. It can never be aware of what it is, only of what it was, so you can forget about all this "Know Thyself" crap.

    24. Re:Yes it can by deimtee · · Score: 1

      Do you mean 'an effect-before-cause thing that you will be told about someday, but you can't remember the details' ?

      --
      I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
    25. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order for something to be considered an observer, it must have an informational state that can be changed by the information being received from the object being observed. In order to extract any meaningful data about the object being observed, the information being received must be both proportional to and consistant with the informational state of the object being observed, and must change proportionaly to and consistantly with any change to the informational state of the object being observed.

      But all of this is true for the slit! The informational state of the slit is the status of its components, which will be altered by the passage of the photon (EM wave). As such there is an informational state that is changed proportionally to and consistant with the informational state of the object observed. So it seems to fufill your requirements for an observer. As do all the air molecules the photon passes.

      And to reply to your final point it would depend if the way in which the observers informational state changed in relation to the desired information (i.e. you may be interested in some aspect that has not changed or has not changed significantly).

    26. Re:Yes it can by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      Actually the results of this test depend completly on it's purpose. One version has it proving mutiple quantum universes thusly:
      Light through the slits diffracts, wave behaviour.
      One controls the light to the point where you are emitting single particles. Diffraction cannot occur, as there is only on particle.
      One records the finish point of particle after particle, and find they make the diffration pattern eventually anyway.
      The photons are obviously hitting photons from another universe in a probabilistic fashion.
      Other universes exist.

      Also, it proves that light is a particle or a wave depending on the observer (and possibly the day of the week), proves that everything only probably exists as we see it (fortunatly it seems improbable that the Earth doesn't exist, as we are here, it would seem). It may also prove the moon is made of cheese.
      The result depends largely on the amount of negative information the observer has. Large amounts of negative information can even result in the denial of the possibility of the said results being true, and in this case the whole test ceases to exist - probably. ;-)

    27. Re:Yes it can by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Oh crap! The US has already been hit with this weapon and we're just too stupid to realize it (fortunately I was wearing my tinfoil hat, so I am able to point-out the attack.)

      For further proof that tinfoil protects against the stupid-bomb, I used two of the three, err...well now all three forms of to,too,two in this article without screwing them up.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    28. Re:Yes it can by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 2, Funny
      It may also prove the moon is made of cheese.

      It has already been proven that the moon is made of cheese.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    29. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hehe, I was thinking of a time a guy I used to work with was having lunch, and he let out a noise somewhere between a whimper and a quiet scream.

      Cue questions like, "what's the matter? Are you okay?"

      He then said, "I tried to think of infinity, and it's hurt my head."

    30. Re:Yes it can by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

      But the advantage of proving it with quantum probabilities is that you can estimate what order of infinity universes also have a moon made of cheese.

    31. Re:Yes it can by dorkygeek · · Score: 0
      [...] the slits in the double-slip expetiment [...]
      I'd really prefer the zero-slip experiment!
      --
      Windows is like decaf - it tastes like the real thing, but it won't get you through the day.
    32. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 'slit' is an absence of the paper. The paper could be considered an observer (it could certainly be affected by the photons), but the slit isn't, because the slit isn't anything at all!

    33. Re:Yes it can by tabrnaker · · Score: 1

      arbitrarily? It's called consciousness. Humans have it, that's why we're observers, and gods as well since we CAN change the reality that we observe.

    34. Re:Yes it can by tabrnaker · · Score: 1
      Observers are special. They're gods in training.

      Most of us are just big babies. :)

    35. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1

      People are able to apply methodically astrology to the real world, earning real dollars in the process, and heck sometime's they're accurate. When there is engineering based on this interpretation of QM (and the details aren't secret) I'll be more impressed. For all the talk of quantum encryption and quantum computing, it's still more Power Point than product.

      New theory of quantum measurment? OK, added to my to do list. What I do now pays better, however, so it might take a bit. ;)

      Fimbulvetr has the attitude of an undergrad who's done all the work to understand the current theories, and is convinced they they're uber because of all the work required to learn them. There's a lot of disagrement on how to interpret the interference patterns, but since they predict the same results for simple experiments the differences aren't really science yet. Eventually the truth of (the details of) "spooky action at a distance" will be tested by engineering, and that will help collapse the uncertainty among theories - it may turn out that his arrogance is justified, or it may turn out that Tipler's undergrad text is almost as full of BS as the rest of his writings (have you read his web page? the guy is nuts!).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    36. Re:Yes it can by lgw · · Score: 1

      There are many ways to explain an interference pattern.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    37. Re:Yes it can by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > we CAN change the reality that we observe.

      It may be semantics, but can we really? As I see it, all we can do is push molecules around and coerce them into "changing" each other through chemical reactions. Even then, however, the atoms are still the same (theoretically, I guess); they're just reorganized, which makes them appear different... but are they?

    38. Re:Yes it can by hesiod · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are knowledgeable in the field (I am certainly not) or just like reading stuff on it, but from an observational standpoint, how does (c) look different from (a)? If we assume a constant "velocity" through time, either way the observer would see: absorbtion, wait for it.... then emission.

      Can we tell the difference between an electron that has absorbed a photon and one that has not?

      Is the difference that in (a) they can tell that the photon/electron are together and that in (c) it appears mysteriously absorb a photon that promptly disappears then is emitted as it suddenly reappears?

      Could this not be explained also by a photon moving into another dimension, as predicted by certain string theory models?

      Hmmm, maybe positrons and protons are basically the same thing, just moving in different directions in time (which would -- not really -- explain why electrons seem to have so little mass: it's the time "warp")! Sorry, I only had one cup of coffee today.

    39. Re:Yes it can by hesiod · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, I forgot this too:

      With diagram (c), wouldn't it also imply that one electron existed at three points in space simultaneously (in a line probably, for a very short duration)?

      Very interesting, yet very short, link. It sort-of answered some questions I asked, but not very well.

    40. Re:Yes it can by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > If there's only one particle, travelling in a circle through time, how does this work?

      I don't know that it's a non-stop time circle, as presented by that page. It says nothing about how that cycle starts or stops, could something not jar it out of its time cycle? (Like I know anything about time-traveling electrons... hell, even space-traveling ones are beyond me.)

    41. Re:Yes it can by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      I suggest you check out Professor Lewins physics lectures on MITs OpenCourseWare. Quantum Physics in particular, if I recall, is in the electronics and magnetism 802 course. If not, it's in his 801 course.

      --
      It's been a long time.
    42. Re:Yes it can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, quantum physics is covered in the Quantum Physics courses (8.04, 8.05, and 8.06). Go figure.

      I had Lewin for 8.03. Watching a lecture from him is like going to a Broadway show.

    43. Re:Yes it can by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      His OpenCourseWare lectures are literally singularly responsible for my continued success in physics. /me bows in reverence towards someone who actually gets to GO to MIT.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  33. Only fooling themselves by Robotbeat · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Apparently, researchers hope to use this to gain deeper insights..."

    Taking into consideration the sentence before that, it seems like the hope of those researchers is unfounded... Irony.

    1. Re:Only fooling themselves by aled · · Score: 1

      So, if one study enough negative information would end knowing less than when started?

      Yup, ironic.

      --

      "I think this line is mostly filler"
  34. Old philosophy, revisited... by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    "One thing only I know, and that is that I know less than nothing" - Socratum

  35. That explains it! by St.+Vitus · · Score: 2, Funny

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    So, American television programming has been giving us negative information
    for decades now....

  36. Clarify? by goldberry · · Score: 2, Funny

    What exactly do you mean by this?

    --
    But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
    1. Re:Clarify? by goldberry · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm grateful for the positive moderation, but that wasn't meant to be funny. I truly want to know what currivan meant by this statement. It confuses me because I know that verse well and find nothing "negatively informative" in it.

      --
      But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
    2. Re:Clarify? by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

      Which proves the point.

  37. Yeah, okay. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Quantum theorists need to stop smoking pot and look at the world around them. You can't have negative information, seeing something occur doesn't change the outcome, oh and the earth is square.

    1. Re:Yeah, okay. by Dwedit · · Score: 1
  38. is it like when... by Abstract_Me · · Score: 0

    Is it like when you talk to somebody and they make a comment/statement soooo stupid that you actually lose IQ hearing it?

  39. Oh, man! I wonder how many /.-ers will get this :) by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First off, QM isn't the easiest subject; even experts say that if you say you understand QM (as oposed to just apply it) you're lying.

    So first off you need an understanding of QM (it's statistical information, so screw the Kopenhagen interpretation :P). Then you need to understand the concept of information, in the context of QM. After that you need to know what's meant by /positive/, in the context of information and in the context of how a Quantum Mechanic would apply that. And then you'd need to read the papers and grok what negative quantum information means.

    Shit, I'm getting to my third year of applied physics, and I'm just grokking the basics of QM, let alone the concept of 'information' (let alone positive or negative) in QM :)

    --
    -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  40. you'll know less by big+whiffer · · Score: 2, Funny

    What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    1. Re:you'll know less by glowworm · · Score: 1

      Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

      Then it stands that it was negative information. QED.

      --
      Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
    2. Re:you'll know less by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Then it stands that it was negative information.

      Right. That's probably why he made the Billy Madison quote.

  41. I get it now... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    That explains all those lecturers I had that would put me to sleep instantly...and I would wake up a few hours later completely clueless until I had a few beers...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  42. Not new by jafiwam · · Score: 1

    "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

    That, plus any other saying that makes the listener dumber.

    1. Re:Not new by sharkdba · · Score: 1

      "If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college."

      Could you please explain this? I feel like I understand less now than... ehhh... never mind.

      --
      The purpose of life is to find the purpose of life.
    2. Re:Not new by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      It's a Louis Black (comedian on Daily Show) clip from his stand up.

      The reason people just die of brain hemmorage, is they hear something so stupid it kills them.

  43. This explains the Creationist/ID movement by Dimensio · · Score: 3, Funny

    All this time I wondered how so many people could be so stupid as to believe the mountains of bullshit pushed by the creationist movement, and this explains it!

    As information regarding the field of biology -- specifically in the study of evolution -- increases, a balance must be made. As a result, the increase of information in biology causes a reaction of an equal increase of negative information with respect to the creationist movement. The more biologists figure out and the more knowledgable experts become, the dumber and more gullible the general populace must become to balance the information flow out.

    1. Re:This explains the Creationist/ID movement by goldberry · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I would just like to point out, as a biologist and a Christian, that these two fields are not mutually exclusive. I firmly believe in creation, and I am facinated by the science I am constantly learning, but neither field rules out the other. I'm sure some believers have seriously mishandled debates to this effect, and for that I appologize, but I would beg you to remember that we are all human and subject to error.

      (I also appologize for my apparent over-use of conjunctions today :P)

      --
      But one day Tom, he went and caught the River-daughter, in green gown, flowing hair, sitting in the rushes
    2. Re:This explains the Creationist/ID movement by Humorously_Inept · · Score: 2, Funny

      I want to moderate this up because I think it's both funny and poignant at some level, but I can't do it in light of the poor delivery.

      --

      ~Someday, I hope to be an aspiring author.
  44. Expanding the cardinality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Negative information may be, or may not be, equivalent to expanding the set of all possible information. In that sense, you discover more of what you do not know, hence know less of the total knowledge.

    This may not be what they are talking about, but this notion of expanding the cardinality of the problem by introducing new information has been a helpful analogy in other mathematical problems.

  45. Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by benna · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He wrote, "The scholar learns something every day, the man of tao unlearns something every day, until he gets back to non-doing."

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by kfg · · Score: 3, Funny

      . . .the man of tao unlearns something every day, until he gets back to non-doing.

      1)Don't RTFA
      2)???
      3)Enlightenment!

      KFG

    2. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by benna · · Score: 1

      I wasn't completly serious. It's true, I haven't RTFA, though I probobly will later. I was just pointing out that the concept of unlearning is not a new one.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Um...no. That has nothing to do with the article. You just got modded up because you mentioned a Chinese philosopher. Sorry.

      I'm going to try to add some ancient Chinese wisdom to this post to see if I get modded up:
      "Man who fart in church sit in own pew."
    4. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read your post, scrolled to the bottom of the page and saw the fortune cookie down there. Guess who's quote it was.

      "Only those who leisurely approach that which the masses are busy about can be busy about that which the masses take leisurely. -- Lao Tsu"

    5. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      A philosopher is someone who knows about very many topics, and is able to assess them all, under one hat. As he goes on to learn about more and more things, because of his limited brain capacity, he gets to know less and less about each individual thing, until he reaches his goal of knowing nothing about everything.

      Old Joke (blatantly plagiarized here):
      Zen master to hot dog vendor: "Make me one with everything!"
      The Zen master pays with a twenty-dollar bill, which the vendor puts in his pocket.
      Zen master: "Where's my change?"
      Vendor: "Ahh, Change! Change cannot come from without, it must come from within!

    6. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by benna · · Score: 1

      I know, and I must admit the connections some try to draw between eastern mysticism and physics annnoy me to no end for their oversimplification. I don't take my own post seriouusly. I just thought I'd say it.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    7. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by lgw · · Score: 1

      You left out the part where the Vendor doesn't give the Zen Master a hot dog, as the Zen Master already is "one with everything".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Lao Tzu figured this out millenia ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Only those who leisurely approach that which the masses are busy about can be busy about that which the masses take leisurely. -- Lao Tsu"

      Yeah, yeah; everything is one way, then it's the opposite.

  46. This explains SCO's press releases by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

    I always feel like I know less after reading Darl's various enlightenments....

    1. Re:This explains SCO's press releases by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My ass has been bleeding for about five days now. What should I do? I mean, I've gone through about nine pairs of pants now and countless pairs of socks. My dog keeps following me around and sniffing my ass and my african american neighbour keeps grinning at me over the fence.

  47. I do believe... by Symbha · · Score: 1

    This discovery is itself, negative information.

  48. Quantum mechanics is already well known as... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

    ...having things that act like negative probabilities. For example the classic two slit experiment shows that we can make it less likely for a particle to travel from A to B even though we have increased the number of paths by which it can travel from A to B. I'm not terribly suprised, therefore, by the existence of negative information.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Quantum mechanics is already well known as... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      ...things that act like negative probabilities.

      Well, except they're negative probability amplitudes, a horse of a fairly different (e.g. complex) color. But this is a minor quibble, and I agree with you generally.

    2. Re:Quantum mechanics is already well known as... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on your interpretation of quantum mechanics. As Bayesians consider probability to be assigning likelihoods to logical propositions, some people think you can (maybe) relax the requirement that probabilities be real, and form so-called exotic probability systems based on C or H (quaternions) instead, from which quantum mechanics just drops out as a consequence. Within an exotic probability system, it is meaningful to speak of a probability with a value like 0.1+0.2i

      If this bugs you, it helps to imagine a probability system where 1 means "it's definitely true" and infinity means "it'll never happen", instead of 0 and 1. Now, if you can see that the choice of the 0..1 interval is thus in fact arbitrary, why not allow other intervals and spaces of likelihood? It was then shown (see link below) that the only spaces that make sense for exotic probability theories are isomorphic to R,C or H.

      That "why not?" tends to lead to an flamage from frequentists, but bayesians tend to go "uh. maybe. But now my head really hurts, you git.", and QM people go "look, the equations work already, you're not adding anything useful, just another way of interpreting QM"

      See http://physics.bu.edu/~youssef/quantum/quantum_ref s.html

    3. Re:Quantum mechanics is already well known as... by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      OK. I'm one of the QM people, then. Thanks for the link.

    4. Re:Quantum mechanics is already well known as... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I'm completely fine with that approach. Ordinary probability emerges from this exotic probability because when you look at probabilities in large systems you tend to get lots of 'cross terms' that have random phase and tend to cancel each other out. Unfortunately 'random phase' is an idea from classical probability theory so I'm not sure what it means here.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  49. Make sense! by drzolo · · Score: 0

    No really, can someone give an example of this in non meta physical world? I am having trouble understanding... idea seems very interesting... but how?

  50. So.. by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

    So if we can figure out a way to manipulate this could we not "erase" someones memory? Isn't it possible that we already know all about this yet our memories may have been effected in some way?

    I haven't RTFA (yet) but this seems one of them "If we saw invisible people would we even know?" type questions..

    --
    I like muppets.
  51. sounds like... by ricochet81 · · Score: 1

    Negative information? Doesn't that happen when one watches TV? I swear I get stupider every time I turn it on.

    --
    Error: Id10t detected
  52. Obe-Wan has known it for years. by phreakhead · · Score: 1

    This is not the information you're looking for.

  53. Negative Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

    Sometimes even politicians show their scientific side!

  54. I can smell it!!! by baylanger · · Score: 1

    Yes, in this news room, it does smell like Microsoft... there's even some really bad smell left from Enron and a few others!

  55. Implication on Information Theory and Probabilitie by Juiblex · · Score: 1

    Information is defined as -log2(p), where p is the probability of the event. E.g, in a coin toss, the probability of H(ead) or T(ail) is 0.5, so the information about this event is -log2(0.5) == 1 (i.e, 1 bit).

    Negative information means that the probability p must be higher than 1... well, if this is true, then an entire new probability theory (or quantum information theory) will have to be built! A piece of information of -1 bit is informing something with probability 2.0... what does this means? An event that is doubly sure to happen? =p

  56. The real question is... by theantipop · · Score: 1

    will this hold up in court? Seriously. Please forward your thoughts to my lawyer ASAP.

  57. Negative? by daviq · · Score: 0

    Perhaps it's just information in a grayishy area.

    --
    Go to the w3.org and put Slashdot.org through the validator.
  58. 24 Hour News by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."

    Anyone who watches any of the 24 hour cable news networks should know this by now. Well, they probably don't because I'm guessing it's hard to observe information loss...because you won't remember it. This is probably redundant by this point thought, huh?

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  59. I was expecting a Fox News joke... by the_skywise · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    But that just about matches my expectations...

  60. Of course by jpardey · · Score: 2, Funny

    The truth of the Time Cube surrounds even the most educated stupid researches of us. -(1) + -(1) = +(A North American).

    --
    I have freaks! I did something right...
  61. good news by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    now if i can get the right negatve information i can finally get those awfull images of goats.cx pictures out of my mind :P

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  62. Or is that just the wave function? by argent · · Score: 1

    If you absorb enough negative information, will that collapse your head?

    1. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, as in it will slowly anhilate your brain matter.

      At least I think so/

      --
      Sig
    2. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      ""

      Depends on whether yours is already collapsed or not.

      hmmm. Reading your posts?...

    3. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by argent · · Score: 1

      Depends on whether yours is already collapsed or not.

      My head or my wave function?

    4. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      lol, sense of humor. I like that. Most would take offense to the purposefully open ended comment and assume that it was derogatory.

      The wave form, of course ;)

    5. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by argent · · Score: 1

      It's inherently impossible to know if the wave function collapses or not. There are valid interpretations of QM in which the collapse is just a mathematical simplification. That's really what the Everett-Wheeler-Grahame hypothesis (the badly-misnamed and much-misunderstood "multiple universe" model) is all about.

    6. Re:Or is that just the wave function? by Blitzenn · · Score: 1

      To quote a somewhat wise old man, ""Ahhh. A man with a sharp wit. Someone ought to take it away from him before he cuts himself."

      ;)

  63. U of MD study already discovered the phenomenon by joehill48 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Negative information has been known about for some time. A study at the University of Maryland revealed its existence in the media realm a couple years ago.

    Fox News. The More You Watch, the Less You Know.(tm)

  64. Math by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would it be accurate to analogize this to antimatter, in the sense that the latter was found mathematically first, and observed later (and maybe not yet)?

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
    1. Re:Math by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      An answer, an answer, my mod point for an answer!

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  65. Best place for negative information by Aexia · · Score: 2, Funny

    Browse at -1

    1. Re:Best place for negative information by MyLongNickName · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nope. Try +5 Insightful!

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Best place for negative information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Browse at -1

      I think it has something to do with a certain gaping black hole that can be found frequently in these posts. It somehow pulls the information out of your brain and replaces it with a feeling of nausea and revultion.

      You know the one, it begins with goatse and ends with .cx

    3. Re:Best place for negative information by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Mod up!

  66. Conservation of Information by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    The question is does transmitting negative information from point A to point B cause the informantion level of A to increase? If so it would explain how universities work.

    Simply put they bring in the best and brightest students, hire professors to send these students negative information in their lectures and writings, and thus the university gains information.

    Keep this up for a couple of hundred years and it is quite obvious how top universities become famous as such great centers of learning.

  67. I think Feynman thought of this first by mbone · · Score: 4, Informative

    I distinctly remember a lecture by Feynman at Caltech in the early 1980's where he talked about negative information (probability). I am sure I still have notes for it somewhere. Of course, you can never see negative information; any actual measurement has to have positive probility. But it can give quantum interference effects in measured quantities.

    Feynman presented it as just a different way of having quantum interference, from negative probability instead of complex amplitudes.

    1. Re:I think Feynman thought of this first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Even though Feynman had negative probabilities, the information was still positive. He used negative AND positive probabilities, and the net effect would still lead to positive information (if you added everything up). The authors say that information is due to entanglement. Feynman was only talking about single particles going through slits, so there could be no entanglement in his example (entanglement requires two particles).

    2. Re:I think Feynman thought of this first by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nope. Even though Feynman had negative probabilities, the information was still positive. He used negative AND positive probabilities, and the net effect would still lead to positive information (if you added everything up). The authors say that information is due to entanglement. Feynman was only talking about single particles going through slits, so there could be no entanglement in his example (entanglement requires two particles).

      Two things. First, can we observe negative information? Sounds to me like we still just observe nonnegative information. That hasn't changed. Appears to me that negative information is virtual which is quite in line with Feynman's points.

      Second, single particles going through slits? Sounds like self entanglement, ie, the states of the particle going through two slits considered seperately are entangled with one another.

    3. Re:I think Feynman thought of this first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
      Two things. First, can we observe negative information? Sounds to me like we still just observe nonnegative information. That hasn't changed. Appears to me that negative information is virtual which is quite in line with Feynman's points.

      What do you mean by observe? If you mean, what is the information of the things we see, then what you say sounds right. Because classical information is positive always. If you mean, can we tell that the information is negative, then it seems we can -- the authors show that if the information is negative you can "gain the potential for future communication".

      Second, single particles going through slits? Sounds like self entanglement, ie, the states of the particle going through two slits considered seperately are entangled with one another.

      No no no. The particle is only entangled with the slits when the slit records which one the particle went through. But this is exactly the case when all the probabilities are positive, because the particle behaves classically. When the particle shows interference, then it is not entangled with the slits.

      Feynman's use of negative probabilities (which is different to information!) was a calculational trick, and is really cool, but it is not what you and the parent seem to think it is.

    4. Re:I think Feynman thought of this first by khallow · · Score: 1
      What do you mean by observe? If you mean, what is the information of the things we see, then what you say sounds right. Because classical information is positive always. If you mean, can we tell that the information is negative, then it seems we can -- the authors show that if the information is negative you can "gain the potential for future communication".

      Observation has a special meaning in quantum mechanics. Pretty much it's classical measurements of the quantum system. My gab then about negative information being "virtual" gives a little hint.

      No no no. The particle is only entangled with the slits when the slit records which one the particle went through. But this is exactly the case when all the probabilities are positive, because the particle behaves classically. When the particle shows interference, then it is not entangled with the slits.

      Guess I have to explain myself. For two slits, we have two partial wave functions which is the contribution to the particle's total wavefunction from travelling along that path through one slot. The two are correlated/entangled with one another. Observing which slot the particle travels through destroys that entanglement.

      Feynman's use of negative probabilities (which is different to information!) was a calculational trick, and is really cool, but it is not what you and the parent seem to think it is. I think I'm right here. It's not a great leap from negative probabilities to negative information. After all, what's a two state system with a negative probability of existing, but a bit of negative information? Plus, and I'm not demeaning the current work, negative information is a calculational trick as well.

      Finally, I think the concept of negative information (you have to search for "negative information" in the long article) in the classical sense has been around for a few decades in philosophy though as a way to form negations. Ie, you subtraction the information that is described by statement P from "all possibility" to get "not P".

      And I recall discussing the idea of "negative information" in the quantum sense with Tom Etter and Jim Bowery (who goes by the name Baldrson on slashdot) back around 2000 (we all worked at Hewlett Packard at the time though those two were contractors). Though the phrase doesn't appear in either persons' online works (according to Google).

      My take is that people have been hankering to apply the concept of negative information to quantum mechanics for some time. What may be new is that we appear now to have a rigorous math formulation of the concept.

  68. From one of TFA... by abulafia · · Score: 1
    From this: I will mention three ways of understanding negative information. Both are just rough analogies, but they kinda make sense (hopefully).

    It looks like the author's already experimenting with negative information...

    --
    I forget what 8 was for.
  69. Welcome... by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    ...to Fox News Network.

  70. Re:Implication on Information Theory and Probabili by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When encountering p > 1, I take the reciprocal [sp] automatically. So, if p is a probability, p := 1 / p.

  71. Re:Implication on Information Theory and Probabili by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 1

    Forgive me, but aren't you talking about the entropy of information and not a definition of information itself? I was just reading about this in "Mastering Algorithms With C." In the book it is used to calculate the amount of actual bits needed to represent information for compression techniques.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  72. Negative Information by Mr.+Roadkill · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less
    Ahhh... that explains rather a lot about Creation Science and its adherents.
  73. Star Trek by wilgaa · · Score: 0

    "Beam Me Up, Scotty!"

  74. Argument Clinic by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 0

    Man: I came here for a good argument.
    Mr Vibrating: No you didn't, you came here for an argument.
    Man: Well, an argument's not the same as contradiction.
    Mr Vibrating: It can be.
    Man: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition.
    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
    Man: Yes it is. It isn't just contradiction.
    Mr Vibrating: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
    Man: But it isn't just saying "No it isn't".
    Mr Vibrating: Yes it is.
    Man: No it isn't, an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.
    Mr Vibrating: No it isn't.
    Man: Yes it is.
    Mr Vibrating: Not at all.
    Man: Now look!
    Mr Vibrating:(pressing the bell on his desk) Thank you, good morning.
    Man: What?
    Mr Vibrating: That's it. Good morning.
    Man: But I was just getting interested.
    Mr Vibrating: Sorry the five minutes is up.
    Man: That was never five minutes just now!
    Mr Vibrating: I'm afraid it was.
    Man: No it wasn't.
    Mr Vibrating: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.
    Man: What!?
    Mr Vibrating: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.
    Man: But that was never five minutes just now... oh come on! (Vibrating looks round as though man was not there) This is ridiculous.
    Mr Vibrating: I'm very sorry, but I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
    Man: Oh. All right. (pays) There you are.
    Mr Vibrating: Thank you.
    Man: Well?
    Mr Vibrating: Well what?
    Man: That was never five minutes just now.
    Mr Vibrating: I told you I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid.
    Man: I've just paid.
    Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
    Man: I did! I did! I did!
    Mr Vibrating: No you didn't.
    Man: Look I don't want to argue about that.
    Mr Vibrating: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay.
    Man: Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!
    Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.
    Man: Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.
    Mr Vibrating: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.
    Man: I've had enough of this.
    Mr Vibrating: No you haven't.

  75. Most political ads are negative information by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Karl Rove does not have a monopoly on negative information.

    Nearly all political ads on TV leave the viewer even less informed!

    I am glad to see there is a theoretical basis for this in quantum mechanics.

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    1. Re:Most political ads are negative information by XchristX · · Score: 1

      George Orwell proposed all this way before anybody else (doublethink, duckspeaking etc)

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    2. Re:Most political ads are negative information by LucidBeast · · Score: 1

      Right or wrong, I have always just called it disinformation.

    3. Re:Most political ads are negative information by denissmith · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Karl Rove was the funniest of the names I tried in the sentence. John Kerry? Funny last year, lame today. Bill Clinton? So last century. Fox News? Too expected. It was a joke, not a pure political comment. A joke, remember those?

      --
      I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
  76. Quantum devices in all living room by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

    If I watch TV, I become stupid, hence TV is a quantum information device.

  77. Spooky action at a distance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

    But if information and negative information are transferred at the same time, would >c speeds be possible? The net information transfer would still be zero, so I could see this becoming one of those crazy quantum loopholes.

    1. Re:Spooky action at a distance by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Heck no. No one has ever proposed a feature of QM that conflicts with relativity. Even quantum teleportation doesn't transfer information faster than c, since the experimenters need to get together (or exchange radio messages) to discover what was transmitted, and of course that restricts things to less than c.

      Generally, as I understand it, if you allow transluminal information flow you run into problems with causality. Since we tend to want to believe in a causal universe, this is a big no-no. Anyone indulging in FTL transmission of information is always arrested shortly before they commit the timecrime by the Illuminati and executed forthwith, if not sooner.

    2. Re:Spooky action at a distance by bhaberman · · Score: 1

      Presumably this arrest is carried out by the Chronology Protection Agency

  78. So negative information... by ShadyG · · Score: 1

    ...wants to be enslaved?

    1. Re:So negative information... by benna · · Score: 1

      One would hope so.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
  79. When you think about it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This negative information thing is a new feature of Internet Explorer, right?

  80. Escort Web Pages by pyrrhonist · · Score: 2, Interesting
    From the author's homepage:
    This web page has about 2500 English words, so it is convoying more information (although I can't speak to the quality of that information).
    But English is a very silly language...

    That's not really how you use that word. His spell checker must have provided negative information.

    --
    Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
  81. Quantum Rumsfeld by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

  82. It's a miracle .. by apankrat · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    .. what C++ operator overloading can lead to.

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  83. Antibrain Matters by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    This is like Lavinsky's theory of the antibrain. The idea (if I recall correctly) is that bad habits are encoded in some parts of the brain. With selective drug abuse or drinking, we can selectively destroy the antibrain that usually opposes our "better half", canceling out the "good brain". So destroying antibrain is equivalent to creating brain. It's like drinking to forget - forgetting to drink too much. I'll drink to that!

    Have I told you about Lavinsky's theory of the antibrain? Stop me if you've heard this one...

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  84. Questions raised by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
    Okay, I went out on a limb and RTFA. I have questions:
    1. Where did Pat transmute into Alex? (Oppenhiem's simple explanation.)
    2. How would I know if I got negative information? Like, would there be a "knowledge hole" left, or would the memory of previously having the information be gone too?
    Dang, that negative information stuff must be working.
    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  85. Re:Oh, man! I wonder how many /.-ers will get this by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

    IANAQP, but just from reading the first summary, they were talking about 'infinite' knowledge and such...are they referring to the discontinuities in QM mathematics that prevent its unification with general relativity? I thought this was the problem that string theory is supposed to help solve.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  86. At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Informative

    Geez, don't be so cynical. After I got my PhD from Berkeley, with a dissertation in quantum mechanics, I taught the stuff to graduate students for five years or so. I've published QM papers in PRA and all that, too. So, yeah, I know what they mean. I'm perfectly qualified to review their Nature paper, if it comes to that, and I doubt I'm the only one like this reading /.

    I have to say I'm not especially impressed by the work, however. The frisson of defining information as negative emerges ultimately from a semi-deliberate muddling of the distinction between the definition of information in the quantum computing context and information as we use the word in daily life. This is not hard useful scientific discovery so much as the scientific equivalent of making an outrageous pun.

    But then I feel similarly about most of what's published in the Bell's Inequality, EPR paradox, quantum tele-whatever field. Getting cynical myself, maybe I am....bah, humbug...grumble...

    1. Re:At least one by sratbot · · Score: 1

      Hardly. The concept of information in the quantum case is well defined, and has been for ages. No where do they appeal to information in everyday life, except on some webpage where they try to explain it to people.

    2. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wasn't arguing that. I'm just saying the reason this is hitting main-stream news and seeming exciting is because of the confusion. If there were no confusion, if everyone knew exactly what quantum information was and how it differed from what we normally think of as information, would this paper get the press it has? Would it be an article on /.? Hardly. Would it even be in Nature? I'm not sure.

      I'm not blaming the authors. It isn't their fault people take it out of its strict scientific context and go wild.

      But...mmmm, how shall I put this? When I read or review a scientific paper, I like to have some question or other answered definitively. We didn't know the value of X but now I've measured it and we do. No one could explain why Y followed on Z, and now here's a theory that does. That kind of thing.

      I'm just not very fond of work that merely "raises interesting questions" or points out curious features of generally well-understood phenomena. I'm not saying such papers shouldn't be published or anything like that, but I see them as fairly low value.

      Now, if everyone in quantum computation had heretofore believed strongly that quantum information could not be negative, and they had come along and proved it could, that might be well worth publishing. But I don't think that was the case.

    3. Re:At least one by enjoys-pigeons · · Score: 1

      You use the word cynical a lot. I do not think it means what you think it means...

      --
      Hello slashdot, my old friend, I've come to talk with you again...
    4. Re:At least one by fimbulvetr · · Score: 1

      I'm not trying to be rude, and assuming you're not lying in your post above, you have more of a formal education than I do, however:

      Don't you think it's a bit counter productive to, say, be an reader/reviewer, yet not be interested in the curiosities that people point out? Isn't that the lifeblood of science? Has not our entire view been changed *many* times over by someone (Eugene Parker, Einstein, Feynman, and many more) driven to uncover the nature of that very same peculiar phenomena you so lightly toss aside?

      Allow me to apologize in advance if I misinterpreted your post.

    5. Re:At least one by nonlnear · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't you think it's a bit counter productive to, say, be an reader/reviewer, yet not be interested in the curiosities that people point out? Isn't that the lifeblood of science? Has not our entire view been changed *many* times over by someone (Eugene Parker, Einstein, Feynman, and many more) driven to uncover the nature of that very same peculiar phenomena you so lightly toss aside?

      That's exactly his point, too. The OP appreciates work that is actually contributing new knowledge. His point was that the article in question is just rambling without making any significant contribution to the body of knowledge in the field.

      While I'm not in quantum physics or computing, I am quite familiar with the academic problem the OP is grumbling about: There are too many papers published with too few actual discoveries. The problem is that padding one's CV is more important to certain aspects of one's professional reputation than making significant discoveries. This leads to lots of papers being written with long references sections that ramble on basically rehashing old work and making "interesting observations" about what things "might" mean. The subtext of "might" of course being that the author cannot say anything for sure, but wants to do a lot of namedropping in the process.

      --
      argumentum ad fallacium: Fallacy of defining a fallacy which allows one to dismiss the argument in question.
    6. Re:At least one by sratbot · · Score: 1
      Have you actually read the full article (and not just the popular description)?? Because it sure doesn't sound like it, and I have no idea why you got modded up. I am also a quantum physicist (I wasn't going to pull that out, but you have).

      Even from just the abstract -- they determine how much quantum communication is needed to transfer a shared state to one system (this is one way to determine the partial information). They find that the amount of communication can be negative (the state is transfered and the potential for future communication is gained). That blows my mind, and I'm used to this stuff. You should try approaching it with an open mind, and joy of discovery.

      Nature doesn't publish things in their letters section unless the result is really heavy hitting and solid.

    7. Re:At least one by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The frisson of defining information as negative emerges ultimately from a semi-deliberate muddling of the distinction between the definition of information in the quantum computing context and information as we use the word in daily life. This is not hard useful scientific discovery so much as the scientific equivalent of making an outrageous pun.

      Kind of like what happened with relativity/relativism ("everything is relative, Einstein even proved it").

    8. Re:At least one by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Geez, don't be so cynical. After I got my PhD from Berkeley, with a dissertation in quantum mechanics, I taught the stuff to graduate students for five years or so. I've published QM papers in PRA and all that, too. So, yeah, I know what they mean.

      No, you misunderstand. This is Slashdot; you have an approaching-seven-figure user ID. Therefore you know nothing, deserve no respect, and are considered to have a small penis.

      That's all that matters.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    9. Re:At least one by radtea · · Score: 2, Insightful


      This is pretty much my reaction, and I have a similar background.

      It has been known for a long time that quantum information can be negative. But no one has known how to interpret it. These guys are giving one possible interpretation out of the infinitely many possible ones. It is a good interpretation as it has some operational significance, but I've always found interpretive papers to be less than satisfying as science (which is why I've never published one, despite having some interesting ones.)

      They are also almost certainly catering to popular misunderstanding in the same way the quantum "teleportation" people do. Use of common terms in a way that you know is going to be misinterpreted is bad science, does the public a disservice, and violates the scientist's obligation to spread truth and understanding rather than obscurity and confusion.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    10. Re:At least one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the sour grapes of you guys!!! It is not a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of defining information and then proving what equation quantifies it. Proving that this is the correct equation is science. The result (if one is to believe the various commentary from other scientists) was a difficult technical achievement. If you have some simple proof of their result, I'd love to see it.

    11. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      No, no, I don't think you're being rude at all. It's a fair question. And I don't really have a good answer. Yes, you're right that many a merely curious slightly misplaced thread has turned out, when you pick pick pick at it, to turn into major scientific discovery. You can quote Michelson in 1895 to me if you want ("all future discoveries in physics will be in the 5th decimal place" or something like that).

      But, on the other hand, it also seems to be true that the purpose of scientific publication has morphed over the decades, and not so much for the better. I recall as a post-doc in 1992 being stunned that one half of the linear feet of the Journal of Chemical Physics on the library shelves had been published since I went to college in 1980. And that journal was founded in 1932 or so! So why was the same amount of material published in the last 12 years as in the first 50? Was there a giant mushrooming in important discoveries?

      I don't think so. Not in chemical physics. But when you read modern papers versus what was published 50-75 years ago, what stands out about the older work is its economy. Publication was less a way to achieve or prove status (it seems) and more just a way to communicate essential ideas to others. So, for example, when folks had an idea that just didn't work out, or an experiment that wasn't even an interesting failure, they seemed simply to not publish. That seems less true these days. I can understand why, mind you: nowadays often someone's graduate thesis and possibly post-doc career can hang on whether the work can be spun as some kind of success, and published.

      It could just be I'm being curmudgeonly, of course. The old days were better yadda yadda. But I do sort of feel there is more publishing for the sake of proving to all and sundry that you have clever insights and thoughts, than to communicate actual discoveries that others will find useful. More vanity publishing, that is. I don't know this is true, and I respect those who think otherwise. It's just a feeling.

    12. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Well, I respect the editors at Nature -- I even used to date one, ha ha -- but they're only human. So I dunno if this logical proposition is one with which I'd strictly agree:

      Nature doesn't publish things in their letters section unless the result is really heavy hitting and solid.

      Anyway, I have no idea why my post got modded up, either. I don't see how it could be "informative" since it's just a reflection of my personal taste .

      OK, so it blows your mind. Cool. It doesn't blow mine, though, and I don't especially think I'm much less familiar with quantum weirdness than you. De gustabus non disputandum est, eh? Let us agree to disagree. Remember, I'm not saying I don't think the work should have been published, or published in Nature -- only that I personally find my mind solidly unblown. Feel free to count me among the Philistines.

    13. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I learned my shell command line geekery on Multics, so I laugh at the arrogance of all you Johnny-come-latelies....har de har har....

    14. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      Well, I might not put it so harshly, but I believe I largely agree with you.

      I think part of the longer-term problem is that I really dislike the glamorization of science, and the false impression it gives that science is like a magical lore, something that when you learn it gives you a direct line to the mind of God, so you can solve all kinds of knotty problems bang, like that.

      Where the truth is that science is more like systematic pessimism, a way to winnow wheat from chaff when it comes to ideas -- and there is a lot of chaff. I remember going down in the elevator with my chairman once, after some idea or other of mine had gone south, and out of frustration just suddenly grumbling out loud: godsdammit, 90% of science doesn't work! He thought it over, grinned, and replied: yep, that seems about right. About 90% of what I try belly-flops....

      See, I feel like it's very important people understand this. That science is very much a case of try and try again, learn from your (copious) mistakes, and that patience, hard work, sobriety and a great cautiousness in your language -- being very careful to not use words that might be misinterpreted -- are actually key hallmarks of the good scientist.

      But I recognize science is now big business, and there are salesmanship and PR aspects to it, in order to ensure its continuing political support and all. Oh well.

    15. Re:At least one by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I learned my shell command line geekery on Multics, so I laugh at the arrogance of all you Johnny-come-latelies....har de har har....

      I notice you didn't deny having a small penis though ;-)

      Anyhow, I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. You could be Dennis Ritchie, and you'd still get less respect for having a high user-ID.

      Tongue-in-cheekness aside, there *is* a somewhat elevated status accorded to those with low user IDs (though it's *very* logarithmic). Unfortunately, I've seen at least one case where someone was treated differently on the basis of his/her low-numbered ID, and it was pointed out that the owner has actually *purchased the #*!& thing on EBay*!!!

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    16. Re:At least one by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

      But you overlook the possibility that the true Buddha wishes to travel incognito, so that (among other things) he need not be bothered by the shallow conversation of false disciples overly impressed by such ephemeral and wordly measures of wisdom, and can keep his select circle of the Elect quietly anonymous...listening...watching...making the occasional, small, barely noticeable Adjustment...

    17. Re:At least one by quantfreak · · Score: 3, Informative
      I am also a researcher near to this field, and actually heard it presented at a conference a few months back. The reaction of the people I know (who actively do research in this area, more so than myself), was one of extreme excitement. I think perhaps you don't understand the result.

      Quantum information is not a question of interpretation -- it is well known what it is, in terms of communication theory. What these guys did, is prove how much communication was required to send information, if the receiver already had some of it. No one knew how to calculate this, much less knew that it could be negative. I can't fathom why you would consider this a matter of interpretation. It is a complex mathematical calculation.

  87. this is old technology by cas2000 · · Score: 1


    it is the guiding principle behind Fox News.

  88. Are you positive? by gellenburg · · Score: 1

    (eom)

  89. You don't know less by Karhgath · · Score: 1

    You don't know less. It's just that alot of things you know is now false. False information is still information.

    1. Re:You don't know less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but what if you cannot tell what is false from what is true ?

      A person thinks that all bears are brown; then another person tells him all bears are black. Now, how much does that first person know ?

    2. Re:You don't know less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It just means that the other person is part of the bear abrownistic worldwide conspiracy, and the first person must guard his beliefs fiercely.

  90. Television by krautcanman · · Score: 1

    It seems that after watching what's on TV for any amount of time I definitely feel a lot stupider.

  91. The application is obvious by base_chakra · · Score: 1

    Negative information is how you erase data on a quantum storage device.

    To erase data on a Quantum storage device, you only need an electromagnet or a hammer.

  92. Obviously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is extremely obvious. If I tell you that the Earth is flat, that is negative information. If you believe this negative information, you know less.
      You now think that the Earth is flat, when before you thought it was round, which is is.

  93. MIT graduates in related research by SysDaemon · · Score: 1

    I recall a few years back of hearing the hypothesis: "Combining two parts of zero information resulted in negative information."

    It went something like: "If we know nothing about a subject, then do both of us together know less?" (Discussing electric brakes on a trailer.)
    Tom & Ray Magliozzi -NPR's Car Talk guys.

    Maybe the experiment is still running -the real 'slashdot effect'

  94. Funny, I have almost the opposite reaction. by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    How do they know their "detectors" are detecting what they think they are detecting. Just because a the screen deflects into a wave pattern doesn't mean a wave hit it.

  95. Ugh, not again by AdamHaun · · Score: 1

    I wish there was a filter for "Abuse of Modern Physics". Anyone want to explain what the article's *really* talking about, minus the stupid jokes? Wikipedia's a bit terse for something this high-level.

    --
    Visit the
  96. It's your stock of entangled particles by iabervon · · Score: 5, Informative

    The trick is that you can use quantum entanglement to have excess unspecified knowledge, which can be converted into specific knowledge. It's like being on a quiz show where you are given a certain number of times you can look up an answer. These bonuses have to count in your total knowledge (I know 100 facts, plus I can look up things twice). If someone tells you something, you get positive information. If you look something up, you get zero information (you trade a bonus lookup for a fact). If you look something up, and you already knew the answer, you get negative information.

    Now think about it as if someone else controlled the book. They can tell you things over the phone, and they can cause answers to pop out of the book. If they waste the book on something you actually already knew, your total information goes down, so the information in the transaction is negative.

    1. Re:It's your stock of entangled particles by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      100(f) + 2(Lu) = 102 (potential) total known
      100(f) + 2(Lu)(other)=98 actual items (if the two given lookups either are false where correct was known or are correct where false knowledge had been assumed correct ) up to 102 (100 originally known are correct + 2 given items are correct).

              The way I read it, the only way you wind up with a negative is in trading a potential for an actual that contradicts a previously assumed actual: if it is simply an item already in possession, the *potential* gets subtracted, the actual does not, and entropy is preserved.

      Gads, this stuff is more fun than metaphysics.

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
    2. Re:It's your stock of entangled particles by iabervon · · Score: 1

      We don't really have the possibility of contradiction here, due to the way the system is constructed, and there isn't "true" or "false" (the information is essentially an arbitrary sequence of bits, and you just care whether you get it or not; we're assuming a theoretical error-free transmission).

      You have to look at before and after a transmission (of, say, 1(f); this will be what tells you that the lookups are spent, and must be new information). Before, you have 100(f) + 2(Lu) = X; after, you might have 103(f) or 101(f). Now, the rules of information theory say that you can't acquire more information than the content of the transmission, and exercising the lookups doesn't count as a transmission. So X must be (at least) 102(f), because of the 103(f) case. But that means that the 101(f) case resulted from a -1(f) transmission.

      The oddity results from the facts that whether resolving the lookups will get you anything is nondetermined until it happens, and that resolving the lookups isn't a transmission of information.

    3. Re:It's your stock of entangled particles by RM6f9 · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

      --
      Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
  97. This paper proves nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This paper just provides a hand-waving argument. This maths-free approach, would be swiftly rejected if submitted to the journal where this topic really belongs - IEEE Transactions on Information Theory.

    However, I can't wait for the longer technical account. Is it common for Nature to publish exciting results without proof?

    BTW, there seems to be a bit of confusion regarding negative entropy and negative information (or rather channel capacity). Entropy is a measure with respect to some coordinates. By changing the scale of the coordinates of a probability distribution, e.g. by changing its variance, you can change its entropy - even making it negative. However, channel capacity is always the same regardless of the coordinates used, as it measures a difference. Its like measuring voltage in a circuit.

  98. Its corporate policy at Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its corporate policy at Microsoft, only they call it FUD.

  99. Meta-concern by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 0

    Is information about negative information a positive, or a negative information itself?

    What about the information about the information about negative information?

    And so on?

  100. not news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less".

    Is this really news? It's obvious to anyone looking at the results of "education" provided by public schools and positions about science put forth fundamentalist right. Most of American society seems to be knowing less every single day....

  101. Mod Parent +Insightful by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    think about it as if someone else controlled the book. They can tell you things over the phone, and they can cause answers to pop out of the book. If they waste the book on something you actually already knew, your total information goes down, so the information in the transaction is negative

    Nicely explained. Thanks.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  102. Re:Oh, man! I wonder how many /.-ers will get this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is completely unrelated to unification.

  103. Great news! by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."

    This is great news for Call of Cthulhu player characters!

    --
    My karma is in a nose dive
  104. Flaimbait??? Parent post is hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Flaimbait??? Parent post is hilarious!

  105. Discovered ages ago... by barfy · · Score: 1

    It's called POT. Or Weed, grass, green, ganja, maui wowee, MJ, the viper. And since the discovery of BC bud, it works WAY beyond the quantum level...

  106. Two words... by Lithium_Golem · · Score: 1

    This explains the phenomenon that is Fox News

    1. Re:Two words... by gru3hunt3r · · Score: 1

      Yes, I routinely feel dumber after watching Fox news.

      There are also several people here in my office which after listening to them for a little while I feel dumber.

      It all makes such perfect sense.

  107. they cheated by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    The paper says that you still need to use classical communication to communicate the quantum information and receive the "free" future communications.

  108. In some ways this parallels counting.... by wowbagger · · Score: 1

    In some ways, this revelation parallels counting in the west.

    Consider counting pies. For the longest time, you either had "N" pies (N > 0), or you had "no" pies (a special, non-numeric state). Of course, the idea of having less than no pies was considered nonsense - "You can you have less than no pies?"

    Eventually, this was generalized - the idea that you might have less than no pies (you might own the Widow Johnson a pie, for example), the idea that having no pies is just another number, etc. were added, and more forms of calculation were made possible.

    So, now we have quantum information. And we have the idea that having "N" bits (N >= 0) makes intuitive sense, but the idea of N being less than zero seems odd. This sounds to me like we are starting to generalize the idea of information just as we did for numbers.

    Now, the question I have is, that given the linkages between information and entropy, what does this mean for entropy?

    Also, I can't help but wonder, will we generalize this to the idea of imaginary and complex information?

    And what would that signify?

  109. What if the article itself is negative information by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Then, my comrades, we have a paradox....

  110. This explains it by tripslash · · Score: 0

    All my posts are negative quantum information.

  111. Music to break Record Players With by (el)Capitan.Nick · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget the lessons from Godel, Escher, Bach! For every perfect record player (or system recieving information), there exists some pattern of music (information) which will destroy the system.

    As for the memory analogy, of course you will forget something if someone tells you just the right info to make your brain explode!

    --
    "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what's right." -Isaac Asimov
  112. A poor excuse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure Microsoft will be using this as an excuse for future security holes.

  113. H(X | Y) 0 (wtf?) by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

    This is what I got from the abstract (being an undergrad in EE).

    We've always been taught that the conditional entropy, H(X|Y) >= 0, but what they're saying is that somehow in a Quantum communications channel, H(X|Y) can be 0 by definition as well.

    So yeah I guess this comment contributes nothing.

  114. Mod parent down, -1 Condescending twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont think you understand his question. The slit (or at least the material it is made out of) is just as much a 'detector' as the photomultiplier, because they both interact with the photons. One absorbs, the other deflects. Or are you saying that the photomultiplier is somehow different because it has a scientist at the end of it?

    PS Intefering wave functions eh? I think you should go learn some QM too.

    1. Re:Mod parent down, -1 Condescending twat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS Intefering wave functions eh? I think you should go learn some QM too.

      Uh... I think the GP is right about this, the empty spaces in the pattern formed on the screen is where the wavefunction interferes destructively, producing a node. Similarly, the bright spots are where constructive interference of the waves happen.

    2. Re:Mod parent down, -1 Condescending twat by deeznutsclan · · Score: 0, Funny

      All this talk of slits and twats is giving me ants in my pants.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, post on Slashdot about it.
    3. Re:Mod parent down, -1 Condescending twat by Lovesquid · · Score: 2

      Or are you saying that the photomultiplier is somehow different because it has a scientist at the end of it?

      That's exactly right. It's not the slit or the photomultiplier or anything else that is the detector and causes the loss of uncertainty. It is the scientist that is the detector. It is only when the scientist observes the result of the experiment that the slit the photon actually went through becomes a certainty. Hence the great philosophical debates that surround the study of quantum mechanics.

      I'm not taking a side, BTW -- only regurgitating what has already been debated for a long time.

    4. Re:Mod parent down, -1 Condescending twat by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      This is all a misconception.

      A "slit" is merely a region of the blocking
      plate that is transparent to photons of a
      particular wavelength. You can cover one slit
      with anything that is transparent to that
      wavelength, and you will still get a
      wave pattern. On the other hand, if you cover
      one of the slits with anything that is
      opaque to that wavelength, you will get a
      pattern that looks like a stream of individual
      photons again. It doesn't matter if slit is
      blocked with a "detector" or anything else,
      as long as it absorbs the photons.

      For example, you can cover one slit with a
      piece of glass. If the photons are in the
      visible-light range, you will still get a
      "wavelike" pattern. But, if the photons are
      in the UV range, you won't, since glass is
      largely opaque to UV. That's why the
      double-slit experiment only works
      reliably in a vacuum, since a vacuum is
      transparent to all wavelengths.

      None of this has anything to do with
      detection, observation, uncertainty or
      philosophy. Just opacity.

  115. Re:Implication on Information Theory and Probabili by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, there are particles in QM that have to be roatated a full 720 degrees to complete a full rotation.

    Couldn't a probability of 2.0 be taken to mean that two atoms are going to be created using one atoms complete energy to create antimatter. One atom being the antimatter, and one being normal matter. When these two pieces of information meet, they anhilate each other and all the information about each other if their informations are completely equal.

    I could be completely and utterly wrong, but I think that's what happens when they make antimatter.

    --
    Sig
  116. Re:H(X | Y) 0 (wtf?) by katharsis83 · · Score: 1

    even weird is when they say the channel capacity can be negative, since I(X;Y) is > 0 by definition, and C = max over I(X;Y).

  117. It's obvious if you shop at Fry's Electronics by MDMurphy · · Score: 1

    The Fry's employees are well known for their ignorance and the amount of misniformation they spew.

    For years I've said that asking a question about a product from a Fry's clerk resulted in you knowning less than you did before asking the question.

    It's nice to know that there's proof now.

  118. Show must go on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that like how in Soviet Russia, information knows you?

  119. Oh my God... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."

    I now understand why George W. Bush is the way he is...

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  120. Yeah, tell me about it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I learned about C++ operator overloading, I thought it was absolutely brilliant.

    Of course, I was in fourth or fifth grade at the time, so I have at least something of an excuse...

  121. If someone could just explain this to RIAA/MPAA by icecow · · Score: 1

    "In this instance, Alice and Bob can have more than just a cheap classical chat: they can also gain an advantage for future exchange, when they will be able to transfer quantum information at no further cost."

    --
    Stop invalid scientific research. Ask your local scientists to feed their lab rats with a phytoestrogen-free chow.
  122. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by BoldAndBusted · · Score: 2, Funny

    I assume the headaches and liver damage are just a nominal side effect.

    Nah, that just bolsters my theory that the liver is actually not a poison-processing organ, but actually a secondary brain, which, through evolution, has been developed to counter the quantum effects of "negative information". Information such as, "I really shouldn't have another drink", and "I really shouldn't kiss that person, especially with my wife in the restroom", and "Oh, so that's how I wrecked the car" and "Here is why you don't tell the nice police officer what I think of him and his family." Unfortunately, evolution hasn't quite gotten around to hooking up the necessary signaling nerves to make this information available to the other brain that has actual control over motor functions. Oh well, maybe next species.

  123. Quantum Slashdot Dupes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    You know they're coming.

    Maybe you're reading one right now.

  124. negative information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here's a straightforward example of negative information.

    Suppose there are 3 possible outcomes of an experiment: A, B, and C. A priori you know that A is 98% likely, B is 1% likely and C is 1% likely. Your uncertainty (i.e. entropy) about the outcome is quite low (because you are almost sure that the outcome is A). Now it is revealed that the outcome is not A. Your new probabilities are 50% on B and C. Your new uncertainty about the outcome is now much higher.

    Being told that A did not occur thus has negative information because it increases your uncertainty (i.e. entropy) about the outcome.

  125. No more by elgee · · Score: 1

    I will never take my software problems to a quantum mechanic again.

  126. Good God by ToasterofDOOM · · Score: 1

    I feel so much dumber after reading this. Geez.

    --
    I am Spartacus
  127. Re:YOU DID IT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your are kinda dumb :P

  128. A little confused... by gadzook33 · · Score: 1
    Then the players start guessing letters until they have enough letters to complete the sentence. Watching the game is just like watching people play the game hang man, but with bigger prizes. One way to think of the information content of the sentence, is to think of it as the minimum number of letters you need before you can guess the sentence.
    I may be missing something but it doesn't seem clear what's considered to be a priori information here. Isn't the structure of the English language part of the a priori information? In the next section he breaks up a telephone number into partial and a priori information but that seems to suffer from similar problems.
  129. Boolean Algebra. by jZnat · · Score: 1

    Wow, now how do we convert this to a boolean algebra? Instead of 1 and 0, we also have -1.

    1 AND -1 = ?
    1 OR -1 = ?
    1 XOR -1 = ?
    NOT -1 = ?
    etc.

    Seriously; this discovery can lead to a whole new way of creating a CPU architecture. The -1 bit can be used for a whole new array of calculation possibilities, none of which have probably been thought of seriously. Architectures might possibly be able to be simpler, or they might turn out to be magnitudes higher in complexity due to the addition of a destructor bit.

    I find it likely that a whole new branch of mathematics could be made from studying 3-point comparison. We are so used to having only 2 sides to an equation (look at the pre-QED standard model for instance; quarks having three sides to balance out really messes with your mind) that this can help in more than one way.

    --
    'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  130. it does make sense.... by timhillu03 · · Score: 1

    if you don't understand this article at first glance, try these tips:
    -cross your eyes and squint
    -smoke a big doobie beforehand
    -read it with your eyes closed and while looking at something else...

    one of these is bound to help you understand what they are talking about.

  131. This Will Fit /. Nicely! by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

    "If I tell you negative information, you'll know less."

    You can see the effects on /. anytime.

    Nothing new here. Move along.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  132. Re:Implication on Information Theory and Probabili by chemistry · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since you have defined a system with at most two states because you are using log2. Why not extend this to Shannons Entropy and say:

    H = -sum(plog2p)

    Now one method that I have recently used to help solve a data-mining/similarty problem in chemistry is to use an Information Gain metric to select a set of features that are useful in searching for compounds with similar properties to a query set:

    I = H1 - H2;

    In essnece I want to select features from the query subset the show a low Entropy in H2 but a high Entrpy in H1. Thus creating a net gain in information.

    Now what if we plug your -2 in for H2? Net negative information gain?

    Not really sure what the implications of this are but it is interesting non-the-less.

  133. MSWord & Storing Negative Information & An by Gary+W.+Longsine · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Fine Article doesn't mention one exciting development in the field of information theory, related to negative information, which may one day tie it to Vacuum Energy or Zero Point physics in a grand unified theory that, once we come to understand it, could form the basis of a star drive to power star ships.

    It seems that virtual particles of antimatter and exotic particles of normal matter that spontaneously emerge from the void, and then disappear without interacting with anything. [1] The theoretical potential of tapping this particle flux has brought vacuum energy to the fore of research by the NSA into Quantum Information Theory.

    Experiments conducted by the NSA and the DOE on large data samples gathered in large bureaucracies (both public and private) indicate that Microsoft Word Documents are effective containers for Negative Information, which hitherto had been considered a transient phenomenon, almost impossible to store given our current understanding of physics. The phenomenon of massive amounts of stored negative informisinformation, as it turns out, makes the typical corporate or government intranet much more resiliant to cyber terrorist attack than previously predicted -- nearly as resiliant as the typical government organization to a FOIA request today, for comparison.

    It is expected that once we understand the characteristics of MS Word Documents which allow them to efficiently store negative information in a stable form, Quantum Physicists and Information Theorists should be able to get together, perhaps over a nice hot cup of tea, and stitch the two branches together, getting us one step closer to faster than light travel, finally bringing the stars within reach -- except it won't really be FTL, it will be something that we don't presently understand. [2]

    Only the humor-impaired need read this bootnote.
    [1]Yes, I see the grammar error. I've intentionally borrowed a pattern, common in conspiracy theory writing, of constructing a complex sentence, perhaps full of objects, perhaps full of verbs, perhaps full of nouns, on the theory that it might amuse, whereas it normally serves to confuse, as sometimes subjects or verbs may go missing. Oops I did it again! Or did I?
    [2]Yes, I realize I mention antimatter only in the title, and not in the text.
    [3]Yes, I realize there are 3 bootnotes, not a single bootnote as referenced above.
    [4]Yes, I realize that only 2 of the bootnotes are indicated by reference numbers in the text. (Absurd bootnotes are also common in conspiracy theorist writings.)

    --
    If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
  134. I think I have this figured out... by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative
    IANA Physicist, and I'm terrible at math. But I think I have this figured out.

    In order to learn something, you have to make a measurement. Of course, in the quantum world, measuring a system will change it, so you are giving up what you know by measuring. It seems that in negative information situations, you are giving up your certainty in order to measure something, but your aren't learning anything in return. So your net 'gain' of information is negative.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  135. Slashdotters! Don't read the article! by extrasolar · · Score: 1

    It's a trick!

  136. Whee by erveek · · Score: 1

    Scientists discover usenet.

    --
    -- This void intentionally left null.
  137. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by MrDomino · · Score: 1

    This is why "Funny" moderation needs to have a karma bonus.

  138. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, a hard disk drive about to crash is a negative information storage device?

  139. Re:True (corollary) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    this has been obvious to anyone that reads/has read trolltalk...

    ...and can be expanded to a broad principle concerning slashdot as a general case.

  140. IANAP by students · · Score: 1

    I am not a physicist, yet. In the situation you describe, it seems that the sum of the information within the black hole and universe outside the black hole would remain a positive constant. The information in the black hole would also remain positive. The information outside the black hole would remain positive. Only the change in information inside the black hole would be negitive. This doesn't seem the least bit exotic to me. Now, if you could make a black hole with negitive area, that would be something different! A "white hole" so to speak, ought to have negitive mass and repel everything.

    Now I shall attempt to read the article. Perhaps you can explain what you mean in more detail.

  141. No kidding.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    Sort of like reading the comments attached to a /. story...

  142. PowerPoint & Storing Negative Information by AoT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All the research I have read points to PowerPoint as a better method of Negative Information storage.

    1. Re:PowerPoint & Storing Negative Information by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      DARN!

      You took the brains right out of my mouth!

      Signed,

      Mr. Powerpoint watcher guy

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  143. A great example of negative information: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly this is nothing to do with quantum physics, in fact it is more disinformation than negative information, but you know the old line about the best lies being hidden in between two truths?...well take this as an example:

    www.indiadaily.com

    Looks like the web-site of an Indian newspaper right?
    Wrong, I'm afraid, although at first it seems to be the completely legitimate web-site of a real newspaper, it is in-fact not even Indian, it is run from San-Jose, in the United States of America!
    AND it is run by just one person!

    How is this negative information, I hear you ask?
    Well look more closely - at the technology pages in particular:

    http://www.indiadaily.com/comp.asp

    Haha! Are you freaked out yet?

    Now needless to say if you have checked the links, this site is the worst piece of yellow journalism you are ever likely to see, although the term 'science fiction' would be more appropriate.
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism)

    However I think this is a good example of real-world negative information, think about it for a moment, and you will realize that this 'news' site is not designed for people in India, as it is written in the English language, with no other languages available.
    My guess is that it is most likely designed for immigrants living in other country's where they have little or no access to printed news material in there own language.

    As for the negative (or dis-) information - well most of it is very clearly spotted, however there is also much on this site that is yet more delusional fantasy, even in the 'world news' and 'politics' sections, the simple way to tell what's fact from distorted fiction, is the name of the writer / reporter, The delusional fantasy crap has either regular (Indian) names, or is marked at 'indiadaily technology team' where as all the real news, is simply marked as 'media release' and 99% of the time is copy and pasted from other *real* news sites.

    As for the Effect this negative information would have on any mentally vulnerable person or even someone who is not so well educated and who is separated from his home country, one doesn't really want to imagine.

    Any script-kiddies out there willing to *cough* *cough*.....did I say something?

  144. Hmmmmmmm by santechz · · Score: 1

    Imagine if this "theory of negativity" thingy applies not just to information alone.... So If "I" am not here, then I can be where I "don't" want to be.. Say I "dont" want to be near Natalie Imbruglia... and Poof! Iam there.... Thank you Quantum Technology for such a quantum leap....

  145. Teleportation??? by Meetch · · Score: 1
    So... the claims of tying it into the principles of teleportation suggest to me (the quantum physics ignoramus) that the key is to know exactly what the teleported object/person is, but not where it is?

    Then at the moment we are able to perfectly reconstruct the item, it could be nowhere, or anywhere? Sounds like it's already been done to me, in the Heart of Gold!

    But more seriously, anyone care to try to laymanise how the existence of negative quantum information can help with research into teleportation?

  146. Re:Clarify? (positive info below) by Lord+Pillage · · Score: 1
    The great grandparent post is a piece of information. Because the addition of this information into the discussion causes confusion (which can be seen from your inquiry) it can be viewed as negative information as it raises more questions without giving anything conclusive.

    Now technically, this really isn't negative information as you still retain all the knowledge you have, but if you wished to rationalize it, you now know less because there is more to understand.

    Think of it this way. If you know five pieces of information, and you know of five other pieces you aren't sure about (for example, the post in question) you would effectively know half of the information known to you in existance. If a piece of information is unconclusive, only raising the awareness of something you don't know, then it effectively reduces the percentage of what you know (ie. 5/11 as opposed to 5/10), leaving you knowing less. And although I am not quite sure that this was the purpose of the post, it's effect can be clearly seen.

    Hoped this help :)

    --
    try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
  147. One thing they know at least by galtenberg · · Score: 1

    Wow, I didn't know SCO had a quantum research program in their Linux division.

    (and with turnover + slashdot attention span, this just went over the head of 60% of readers, sorry)

  148. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by birge · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty obnoxious sig. Maybe they have faith that it's the right way to live? Bothering to enforce one's beliefs would be, if anything, a sign of their sincere faith in the way of life.

    What if I were to say to you: if you really believed murder were wrong, you wouldn't need the government to enforce the idea.

    Enforcing some parts of religion as law is obviously wrong, but given that much of our law arose from Judeo-Christian tradition, I think you could tone down the near-religious anti-religious agitprot.

  149. No, I did. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

    But predictably, I observed the negitive information and it erased the information that I had discovered negitive information.

    Sorry, with only the bachlors degree in physics the only thing I can contribute to the conversation is my weak sence of hummor. Go a head, mod me down. I think we are all stupider having read this and may God have mercy on my soul.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  150. I could have told you this... by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    I had a professor in college where the more he told the class, the less we knew...

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  151. Negative quantum information by JChung2006 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I like negative quantum information the first time I saw it when it was called "error."

  152. But it doesn't work at absolutes by gearmonger · · Score: 3, Funny

    Utter ignorance is the total lack of information, or the complete absence of knowledge. We all know that nowledge is power, and power is force over time. Time is money, so knowledge is force over money. Ergo, someone who is ignorant has no force over money, which is certainly ironic given that the Nature article is entitled "Quantum Information: Putting certainty in the bank". Yes, poor people are easy to make fun of even in quantum states (which were formally known as blue states until the manic depressives complained about trademark infringement).

  153. The Sum of Negative 10xxxx by Stitch_Surfs · · Score: 1

    Finally, an explanation of homeopathy I can understand!

    --
    There is no "I" in B-O-R-G.
  154. Umm... the front page of /. anyone? by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    I rarely bother to read the front page except to spread occasional comic relief to a group of people who take themselves WAYYYY too seriously. As far as I'm concerned, about 90% of the front page at any given time is negative information. If you want real useful info, join a group of friends and read JEs. There's much higher quality in there if you choose the right people.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  155. Explanation of the phenomenon you observed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure that a lot of Slashdotters have had the same observations in high school, so let me explain it for you:

    there were people who gave off destructive mental interference waves. Sitting next to these people would result in a decrease in brain function because their brainwaves were 180 degrees out of phase than the brainwaves of normal people,

    Those people are called women.

    thus cancelling them out and creating a thought-free zone.

    That thought-free zone is called lust.

    Of course negative information is cool, but it would be even cooler if you could combine negative information and positive information to produce a huge explosion.

    That huge explosion is called sex.

    I hope it helps.

  156. Oppenheim's homepage by FridayBob · · Score: 1

    Whatever you do, don't read it!!

    What homepage?

    Doh!

  157. Lao Tzu figured out nothing by Mensa+Babe · · Score: 1

    He wrote, "The scholar learns something every day, the man of tao unlearns something every day, until he gets back to non-doing."

    An apotheosis of ignorance is hardly an achievement in science in general and quantum mechanics in particular. If Max Planck had followed the way proposed by Lao Tzu he would have never introduced the idea of quantised energy in the first place. He would've been be too busy with "non-doing" (i.e. doing nothing). Please don't confuse the scientific method with catchy religious phrases.

    --
    Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
    1. Re:Lao Tzu figured out nothing by benna · · Score: 1

      I wasn't really that serious, but you are misinterpreting Taoism. Non-doing is not synonymous with doing nothing. One who practices non-doing acts without getting in his own way. Lao Tzu does not advocate ignorance, but a different kind of truth. All that said, I mostly posted the quote to see how it would get modded. I don't much like the connections people make between eastern philosophy and quantum mechanics. They tend to misinterpret both.

      --
      "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:Lao Tzu figured out nothing by nihilogos · · Score: 1

      If Max Planck had followed the way proposed by Lao Tzu he would have never introduced the idea of quantised energy in the first place.

      Max Planck had spent his whole career 'learning' that light and matter were continuous quantities and that there were no such things as atoms or photons. His understanding of his own results was confused and almost contradictory. He even gave a convoluted argument as to why photons could not exist, despite what his work was telling him.

      Had he 'unlearned' his prejudices about light and matter he would have been able to make the next conceptual step. Instead that fell to Einstein who also 'unlearned' what everyone had learned about space and time.

      The quote from Lao Tzu essentially means that our accumulated prejudices are what prevent us from understanding the world. Major breakthroughs in physics are almost always associated with an unlearning of some prejudice. Many physicists nowadays suspect that part of the problem with quantum gravity is that we are prejudiced towards the meaning of the word "is", and are unable to unlearn what we think it means.

      There is a Zen saying "in the expert's mind there are few possibilities, in the beginner's mind there are many." This is why most scientific breakthroughs are usually accomplished by younger scientists.

      --
      :wq
  158. introduction to quantum physics by robertdh · · Score: 1

    I've seen a couple of very interesting articles on quantum physics. Since I lack the background, it seems as if I'm really missing out on a great subject.

    Could anyone recommend a book for someone interested in learning the basics of quantum physics?

    1. Re:introduction to quantum physics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try "QED" by Robert Feinman for a good take on quantum physics.

  159. I know. by i_finally_got_an_acc · · Score: 1
    If I tell you negative information, you'll know less.

    It happens to me every day on slashdot. I know... or do I? Come on, mod this up! It's wicked funny!

    --
    "I'm not religious, but at the same time I don't get why science always has to have something to prove."
  160. re: by rupert0 · · Score: 1

    brain_cells--;

    --
    RUPERT! I TOLD YOU TO WATCH THE BAGS! You were looking at the boys again, WEREN'T YOU.
  161. This is a commonly observed phenomenon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before you read a "holy book" you know that you don't know.
    After you read a "holy book" you no longer know that you don't know.

  162. from the you-are-now-dumber dept. by Feztaa · · Score: 1

    from the you-are-now-dumber dept.

    Funny, don't all slashdot stories come from this department?

  163. At last! by atcurtis · · Score: 1


    Finally, proof that anything that all political utterances (writing, speech, etc) may have negative information content!

    Of course, this is something which we have all suspected for years...

    --
    -- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
    -- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
  164. Transcend information by Martin+Spamer · · Score: 1


    your total information goes down, so the information in the transaction is negative.

    Yep, I know that is what the paper say's but I can see a flaw that is never really addressed.

    You have the S (state before transaction) & E (Entangled state before transaction). After the transaction you have S' (state after transaction) & E' (Entangled state after transaction). You also have a new piece of information (S' AND E') which is created/shed which transcends the subjects' state and tells you something about the systems during the event.

    The new information should be called transcend information. Perhaps this is a clue into how the chaotic quantum world combines to form the regular world.

  165. bypass compulsory web registration by Eric+S+Raymond · · Score: 1

    Login details for nature.com

    Account #1
            flagger1
            happy1

    http://www.bugmenot.com/

    --
    Bypass Compulsory Web Registration -- http://bugmenot.com/
  166. Negative information by UltimateRobotLover · · Score: 1

    Last post?

  167. Obligatory Microsoft Pun... by agwilliams1000 · · Score: 1

    Isn't negative information what the rest of us call FUD? In that case Microsoft have known about this for years!

  168. Heisenberg in action by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    The more information you have, the more uncertain you are which information is correct.

  169. Is that a Complement? by Morosoph · · Score: 1

    -- No Text --

  170. How about... by Morosoph · · Score: 1
    Funny Mods 'forget' down-mods?

    Thus, no bonus, but no major injustice!

    I'd have a +5 Funny give a +1 Karma bonus; +5 is more than "smart-arse"; it is often actually funny!

  171. I believe... by Geeselegs · · Score: 1

    I believe, as person who knows only from layman's text on quantum physics, is that it should be learnt like a different language...
    Some things may correlate to what you know, other things may only be described in blunt approximations of what they really are

    For this reason I believe that if anyone does understand quantum physics, it is probably impossible to communicate in such a way that truely demostrates such knowledge.

    Another thought is that if there is negative knowledge in the quantum world, maybe it can be brought forward into the macroscopic world in a method simalar to which Schrodinger demonstrated that indeterminate effects could be brought forward with his hypothetical cat.

  172. Quantum Conditional entropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Actually, it has been known for a while that the quantity called quantum conditional entropy (which is defined analogue to the classical conditional entropy) can be negative. The problem was that in the quantum setting, the meaning of this quantity was an open question. This paper gives a nice interpretation that is somewhat analogous to the classical interpretation (using quantum communication instead of classical communication).

    A more descriptive title (but more boring for the general public) could have been "Interpretation of Quantum Conditional Entropy".

  173. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's a pretty obnoxious sig.

    Try not to cry about it.

    Maybe they have faith that it's the right way to live?

    What's that got to do with it? People who rely on government to enforce their faith apparently don't have much faith in their Gods ability to convince others of their devine infalability. In other words, they don't have much faith in their own God.

    What if I were to say to you: if you really believed murder were wrong, you wouldn't need the government to enforce the idea.

    I'd say you failed Logic 101 and never made the Debate Team. Just for shits and giggles though, the government doesn't "enforce the idea". I'm certainly not planing on murdering anyone any time soon; the government don't need to tell me it's wrong. Notice that no government can ever stop someone; the best they can do is punish after the fact.

    Your argument contains a goodly amount of negative information.

  174. -5 = +1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Don't be silly, everyone knows -5 = +1. Allow me to demonstrate:
    0 = 0
    -5 * 0 = 1 * 0
    0 = 1 - 1
    -5 * (1 - 1) = 1 * (1 - 1)
    -5 = 1
    What do they teach in schoold these days?
  175. extreme cleverness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    next it will be Infinite Improbability

  176. This is negative information! by Crumplecorn · · Score: 1

    There is only one practical example of negative information I can think of:
    Quantum Physics Research
    Unless you happen to be well educated in the subject, the more you are told about it, the less you know.

    For instance, now that negative information has been discovered, I now know even less that I did before about quantum physics, so this research is negative information.

  177. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by srussell · · Score: 1
    ... Or, you could just sit down in front of Fox News for a couple of hours.

    --- SER

  178. See, we've known this for years... by ki4iib · · Score: 1

    ..."A man with a watch knows exactly what time it is. A man with two is never certain."

    -- Can't Remember Who

  179. I've Noticed This by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1

    Whenever I need to call any company's tech support and have to deal with their level 1 support, I feel as though I know less after talking to them.

    --
    But why is the rum gone?
  180. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by birge · · Score: 1
    Try not to cry about it.

    Is being a patronizing asshole some minimal requirement for an AC post?

    What's that got to do with it? People who rely on government to enforce their faith apparently don't have much faith in their Gods ability to convince others of their devine infalability. In other words, they don't have much faith in their own God.

    You're making assumptions. Most religions explicitly acknowledge the notion that people have free will. Laws enforcing religious moral codes doesn't really consitute a lack of faith.

    I'd say you failed Logic 101 and never made the Debate Team.

    Another AC tactic: make ad homimum insult about logic and then go on to commit worse acts of abuse to logic.

    Just for shits and giggles though, the government doesn't "enforce the idea". I'm certainly not planing on murdering anyone any time soon; the government don't need to tell me it's wrong. Notice that no government can ever stop someone; the best they can do is punish after the fact.? That strawman argument was a lot more shit than giggle. You've completely missed the... Nevermind. I can't believe I just responding to an AC troll.

  181. Mod Parent Up by Eivind+Eklund · · Score: 1

    Good analogy.

    --
    Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
  182. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by bhiestand · · Score: 1

    That's nothing. I discovered the formula for cancelling out negative information and licensed the process under the GPL!

    You simply have to wait until the hangover wears off, then drink an equal or greater quantity of a negative-information-inducing substance. As you cross over the threshold into a negative existance you will slowly remember all of the information that was negative since the last time you drank. Alcohol will actually convert positive information (you knew it while you were drunk) to negative information, but then, amazingly, after weeks of not knowing any of that information, it will magically convert the positive-turned-negative information back into positive information! Until the information-transforming effects of alcohol wear off you will have full knowledge of all previous negative information but may have a severe positive information incapacitation.

    In non-scientific terms, when you get really drunk you remember all the things you did the last time you were that drunk.

    I'm still working diligently, day and night, to discover a process to allow this negative information to remain positive after The Alcohol Effect(TM) has worn off. Unfortunately the NSF has been rather stingy about providing me a grant to fund my research and I have been unable to reuse any of my previous experiment equipment yet.

    --
    SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  183. Obligatory Simpsons by TCQuad · · Score: 1

    Homer: "Remember when I took that home wine-making course and I forgot how to drive?"
    Marge: "That's because you were drunk!"
    Homer: "And how."

  184. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

    Class room doors work simular during finals. Pass through one in one direction (in 99.9% of the cases this is the direction in which you move into the room) and it automagicaly blanks out everything that was taught in said class. You get the reverse effect when you move through in the opposite direction.

    Some point to investigate: Does the moving-outwards-effect cummulate? Repeatingly climbing throught the window and leaving the class room might reveal this. (check with your teacher before attemting this as this might be considered cheating.)

    Untill more research has been done I advise entering classrooms through the windows rather than the door.

  185. MIB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big deal, MIBs have those things since before Will Smith joined!

  186. Undo? by MaGogue · · Score: 1

    ... I believe 'Undo' should be very easy to implement on a quantum computer.

    But possibly also erasing human memory .. hmm, like Calculus I, if you don't pay the scholarship
    .. hmm, makes me wonder if this really hasn't been invented before ?

  187. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Laws enforcing religious moral codes doesn't really consitute a lack of faith.

    Of course it does. It's blindingly obvious to anyone who is capable of aplying the slightest bit of objective logic to the idea.

    Lets take Christian faith as an example. The Judeo-Christian God gave mankind free will. Man has the choice to worship God and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and enter Heaven in the afterlife, or to not worship God, ignore Jesus Christ and act immoral (In the context of a Judeo-Christian God) To do so is simply man excersising his God given free will.

    Now if a group of people who believe in the Judeo-Christian God and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ use the government to enforce Christian morality on those who choose not to believe then they are effectivly saying "We do not believe that people should, by their own free will, choose not to worship our God." Which is a round-about way of saying "We do not accept mans free will and therefore do not have total faith in our own Gods decision to give mankind that free will."

    Get it yet? Free will is a cornerstone of Judeo-Christian faith, yet a large contingent of Christians blithly ignore it and try to impose their faith on people who should be free to ignore it, by their own Gods design. Pretty hypocritical and shows lack of faith in Gods decision.

    I can't believe I just responding to an AC troll.

    Think that's bad? I have mod-points.

  188. Nope. It's a Supplement. 180 degrees, baby... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, no text here either.

  189. In soviet russia... by skarphace · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...information knows you!

    --
    Bullish Machine Tzar
  190. Obligatory Blake's 7 by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

    Blake: What are the surface conditions on Horizon?
    Zen: Negative information.
    Blake: Population?
    Zen: Negative information.
    Blake: Well, is there any information on Horizon?
    Zen: Negative.
    Blake: Well, is the information on Horizon classified?
    Zen: Negative information.
    Vila: Well, that was a whole lot of nothing.

    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
  191. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by birge · · Score: 1

    Nope, I don't get it yet. I fail to see how acknowedging that God stays out of the business of controlling humans means that humans who believe in God must stay out of the business of protecting themselves from the actions of other humans, or even protect other humans from actions of other humans. It seems pretty consistent to me. They believe God told them how humans should live to be happy and fulfilled. They believe God, allowing us free will, isn't going to keep others from doing wrong and infringing on their ability to lead said prescribed life. Ergo, laws. Believe it or not, much of your beloved liberalism comes from Christianity. So I find it highly amusing to watch pseudo-intellectual liberals berate religion when their ethics are so clearly a product of it. Where do you think you got the idea of welfare? Liberalism is pretty much Christian ethics without the supernatural fun stuff.

    The Judeo-Christian tradition has had thousands of years to get the consistencies worked out just fine. You think your idea (or the idea of the guy with the lame sig) is so fricking clever that in the thousands of years between Moses and now that nobody had thought of it? Are we supposed to now say: "Oh shit. He's right. Let's get rid of all laws that have anything to do with morality." Consider the possibility that while religion is not provable, nor is it an easily destoyed sham that we've all been waiting for somebody smart like you to dismantle. Granted, that's not a logical argument meant to refute your statement (though the paragraph that preceded it was) but an appeal to investigate the notion of humility.

    Anyway, how the heck do you plan to defend wealth redistribution laws except as moral codification? You think socialism isn't a moral code of sorts? Similar attacks could be made against any underlying moral theory underlying a law, and they would be equally wrong.

  192. Re:YOU DID IT! by kcarlin · · Score: 0

    They always punish the kid who throws the second punch.

    --
    Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
  193. quantitities[sic]? by streepje · · Score: 1

    ...we are interested in information quantitities...

    (Page 2 bottom left)

    Um, me too... I think.
  194. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find the idea that you have decided that I am both a Liberal and a Socialist, with no evidence of either, quite interesting. It neatly underlines the problems you have with evidence and logical though, I guess.

    You think your idea..is so fricking clever that in the thousands of years between Moses and now that nobody had thought of it?

    Until the late 1940's the majority of people in the western world accepted the Judeo-Christian God as "right". They attented Church like all good Christians and kept their mouths shut. Luckily these days we've had fifty years or so to drag ourselves out of that tar-pit. These days a large minority of the populace don't believe in invisible sky-Gods who'll smit them if they're naughty and subsequently do not accept the concept of legislating Judeo-Christian morality upon the populace.

    We're still a minority though. Hopefully in another fifty years time humanity will have finally gotten over it's superstitious unsubstantiated beliefs and get a grip on itself, and we can all get on with our own lives without interference from well meaning but misguided politicies copying down from a badly translated 2000 year old book.

  195. Re:Finally, a matter I can speak on with authority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or a fox news basher...

  196. Re:Affects black holes! (OT) by birge · · Score: 1
    I find the idea that you have decided that I am both a Liberal and a Socialist, with no evidence of either, quite interesting. It neatly underlines the problems you have with evidence and logical though, I guess.

    Well, you guys are pretty easy to spot these days. Anyway, I never said you were a socialist with a capital S. Perhaps it's fair to say I'm more right about you than you'd like to believe I have evidence for?

    We're still a minority though. Hopefully in another fifty years time humanity will have finally gotten over it's superstitious unsubstantiated beliefs and get a grip on itself, and we can all get on with our own lives without interference from well meaning but misguided politicies copying down from a badly translated 2000 year old book.

    We'll see how well that works. My guess is we'll come full circle (maybe leaving out a few things) and find that Christianity was based on a lot more than superstition. Look, I don't believe the supernatural elements of it, either, but if you think it's all just made up, you're sort of missing your own point to say it's bogus. If it's contrived, than perhaps it was contrived (or, alternatively, evolved) for a reason and to address issues that are universal to humans. My point is basically this: dismissing ideas solely due to their origin is just as irrational as the religion you criticize. Being anti-religious is, itself, a form of religion. A truly rational person can't be anti-religious, because they have to admit they don't really know the answer and that there's probably truth to be found coming from all sides.

  197. Cynical? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that cynical means "dog-like" ... what do you think it means? :)

  198. Absolutely! by Quadraginta · · Score: 1

    Right you are. Poor guy became the poster child for all kinds of absurd stuff.

    One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes cartoons says it all: Hobbes asks Calvin if he maybe shouldn't be worried about his math grade, Calvin says: Heck no! Remember, Einstein got a bad math grade once and look how he turned out! And my grades are even worse...!

  199. asses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i hope they all rot in hell!
    p.s. sure, you want me to elaborate ...

  200. Negative information = liberal media by Shakes268 · · Score: 0

    Just think of all of the negative news stories every day.

  201. Bye Bye Quantum Cryptanalysis? by ricksmith · · Score: 1

    This sounds like the type of situation you get into when you are trying to do quantum cryptanalysis. You start with the ciphertext, which is partial information about the plaintext (unless it's a one time pad) and you're using the quantum cloud to find the actual plaintext.

    Let's predict that this drives a stake through the heart of quantum cryptanalysis.