Proving a Negative
Technically, it is impossible to prove anything; there is always the possibility that everything we know is wrong, or a lie, that we are part of a collective subconscious creating a reality alternate to that of the true universe, without the same rules and laws of physics; as long as there is still a shred of doubt that we don't possess all the knowledge in the universe, there is always the potential we are wrong. Even if we did hypothetically obtain all the knowledge in the universe, there would always be the question of how we knew, for certain, that we knew all the knowledge in the universe (all the knowledge in the universe could be knowing that we know, although this would still be impossible to prove). In essence, it is impossible to, with absolutely certainty, prove anything.
We can get within reasonable doubts, however. Negatives tend to be very difficult to prove; that is, the absence of something. While one could not for instance, prove the existence of the universe, one could not disprove it either. While it would be easy to provide evidence for it's existence, evidence for it's non-existence could perhaps be nothing, which would essentially provide no proof. It is true that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, however, evidence of absence is possible to provide. It is not true that negatives cannot be proven, nor is it true by the same token that a lack of evidence is proof of existence.
How would one prove a negative? To prove God doesn't exist, one would seemingly need to first obtain all the knowledge in the universe, rooting out the existence of God by proving that, in the body of evidence of everything, God was not there. As described above, since this is essentially impossible, it would be impossible to prove God didn't exist unless we had completely knowledge about the universe. However, proof God exists would not require proof of all of the universe; thus, the location, the actions, the current state of every atom, higgs boson, curve in spacetime is not necessary to prove the existence of God, while it is necessary to prove the lack of an existence of God. Some will fallaciously use this as an excuse to state why they cannot prove their point, or even worse suggest that the burden of proof lies on the one claiming the existence of God (although claiming the non-existence of God ironically also demands proof, no less so than claiming cats do not exist). The burden of proof rests on all of mankind; believing in no God without proof of a lack of existence, is just as illogical as believing in a God without the proof of existence. Without evidence, we can make no assumptions. It is incorrect, and illogical then to assume anything without proof, and given that the truth remains the truth regardless of human knowledge, the burden of proof is present on everyone, as no-one is abstained from the truth.
Still, what of Negatives? How would someone prove the lack of existence?
While this is more or less impossible, it is possible to prove within a reasonable shadow of a doubt that something does not exist. How would one for instance, prove something was not the color green? By virtue of it's exclusionary properties, we can conclude that something could not be two colors at the same time, I.E. red and green. Since something can only possess a single color, at least according to the electromagnetic spectrum, only possessing on wavelength and frequency, there is no possible way that something could in fact be green and red at the same time. If a factor excludes information, in that by virtue of being something, it cannot be something else, we can provide evidence for the existence of something, which by that nature invalidates the existence of something else. In physics for instance, two objects cannot take up the same space at the same time; as a result, by the presence of matter, we can prove that no other object could possibly there, thus proving a negative. We can disprove a wide range of qualities by innate truths pertaining to a subject. While this is still impossible to prove (since we cannot prove anything beyond 100% certainty, given that there will always be doubt), this evidence, is considered acceptable, in theory could disprove the existence of a particular attribute. This can be applied to many things; based on biology, a creature could not be both a cat and a dog at the same time. By proving it is a cat, we disprove that it is a dog; by proving for instance, Big foot was actually a man in a suit, or a bear, we prove that, in this particular case, Big foot does not exist. Thus while we can never truly prove any point, it is hypothetically possible without proving everything in the universe first that something does not exist.
Therefore it is within the realms of possibility to realistically prove or disprove a negative. It is hardly an excuse for the lack of evidence for your position, whatever it may be.
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Negative Probability
Negative Probability
Negative probability seems impossible; while there can be a probability something will happen, and zero probability of something happening, negative probability doesn't necessarily imply anything. While quintessential to string theory, suggesting that there must be more dimensions since negative probability isn't possible, means that you could resolve a potentially very important aspect of string theory without needing extra dimensions.
But before determining if negative probability is even possible, we have to determine what probability is. Probability is the chance something will happen; if there are different 8 colors, say green, red, and so on, then the chance of it landing on green is 1/8. If there are two greens on another spinner toy, and we spin it around, and it randomly lands on a color, then there is a 2/8 chance of it landing on green, and so on. A chance of it not landing on green would be 7/8 or 6/8, respectively. Probability is more or less the chance something will happen.
According to wikipedia, "Probability is a measure or estimation of likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen). The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen."[1]
Probability, ultimately, is inconclusive, and not an exact science. The chance something will happen does not mean it will happen. Hypothetically, the chance you'll land on heads when flipping a coin is 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you may however, land on heads 10 times, or land on tails 10 times. The chance of this happening is remote, but still very possible. In the same way, you could flip a coin 10,000 times, and have it never land on tails, and so on. Probability is interesting in that it ,by itself, isn't really an explanation for an event, just it's likelihood. This makes mathematical probability somewhat paradoxical, as mathematics is meant to be empirical, or exactly concrete, while probability is still questionable.
This leads to numerous issues in mathematical calculations. In fact, mathematics, in human use, in it's own right, is imperfect at explaining the real world; as mathematics is nothing more than human input, and human input is likely never perfect, the outcome will always be a close estimation to the answer. When we do calculations, say in calculating trajectory, we typically come up with two answers; generally, a negative answer, and a positive one. Since the curved trajectory uses X^2, or X squared, it means that the number could be positive, or negative. The human application of mathematics tells us to throw out answers that seem erroneous, and thus that likely couldn't exist in real life; we take the fact that an upwards arcing trajectory is what we're looking for, instead of the bottom one, since we are trying to calculate for instance, the effect of gravity, which is always pushing down when on earth. In fact, this same type of principle is what makes a negative probability a factor to ignore in string theory.
But what if there was a negative probability; what if, probability, already in it's own right, isn't a mathematical concept. It is impossible to divide by zero within mathematics because zero is merely a concept; it would be like trying to divide 8 by apples, or gravy, it's fundamentally impossible. Or it might be like negative zero, which has no sign to begin with (as it's neither positive nor negative). But what if, then, we as humans are simply doing the calculation wrong; what if negative probability stands for an idea or concept we are simply glossing over?
What would negative probability then, be? The probability something can't happen, or probability something won't happen? So, the negative probability of something landing on green would be 7/8; since the probability something won't happen is the opposite of the probability something will happen, it could just be that negative probabilities are opposites of regular probabilities; since it can be represented in a positive way, probabilities of which are defined as a concept of a chance of something happening between 0-100, then it's still possible to represent this as something concrete.
Since positives and negatives are more or less inverses of each other, such as positive and negative magnetic poles, or positive and negative particles, the reality is that while we few negative and positive as plus or minus, addition and subtraction, the reality is that when multiplying with concepts we are merely inferring the opposite of what an ordinary symbol is. Thus, a negative probability is simply the opposite probability. What this is exactly I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that wavelength and frequency inversed, or perhaps where the wave meets is not impossible to get backwards. Thus, the way the string is vibrating does not necessarily imply more dimensions to vibrate in, but perhaps the opposite way it is vibrating. On the other hand, it may just imply negative mass or energy, which is capable of and likely existing in it's own right.
Negative probability seems impossible; while there can be a probability something will happen, and zero probability of something happening, negative probability doesn't necessarily imply anything. While quintessential to string theory, suggesting that there must be more dimensions since negative probability isn't possible, means that you could resolve a potentially very important aspect of string theory without needing extra dimensions.
But before determining if negative probability is even possible, we have to determine what probability is. Probability is the chance something will happen; if there are different 8 colors, say green, red, and so on, then the chance of it landing on green is 1/8. If there are two greens on another spinner toy, and we spin it around, and it randomly lands on a color, then there is a 2/8 chance of it landing on green, and so on. A chance of it not landing on green would be 7/8 or 6/8, respectively. Probability is more or less the chance something will happen.
According to wikipedia, "Probability is a measure or estimation of likelihood of occurrence of an event. Probabilities are given a value between 0 (0% chance or will not happen) and 1 (100% chance or will happen). The higher the degree of probability, the more likely the event is to happen, or, in a longer series of samples, the greater the number of times such event is expected to happen."[1]
Probability, ultimately, is inconclusive, and not an exact science. The chance something will happen does not mean it will happen. Hypothetically, the chance you'll land on heads when flipping a coin is 50%. If you flip a coin 10 times, you may however, land on heads 10 times, or land on tails 10 times. The chance of this happening is remote, but still very possible. In the same way, you could flip a coin 10,000 times, and have it never land on tails, and so on. Probability is interesting in that it ,by itself, isn't really an explanation for an event, just it's likelihood. This makes mathematical probability somewhat paradoxical, as mathematics is meant to be empirical, or exactly concrete, while probability is still questionable.
This leads to numerous issues in mathematical calculations. In fact, mathematics, in human use, in it's own right, is imperfect at explaining the real world; as mathematics is nothing more than human input, and human input is likely never perfect, the outcome will always be a close estimation to the answer. When we do calculations, say in calculating trajectory, we typically come up with two answers; generally, a negative answer, and a positive one. Since the curved trajectory uses X^2, or X squared, it means that the number could be positive, or negative. The human application of mathematics tells us to throw out answers that seem erroneous, and thus that likely couldn't exist in real life; we take the fact that an upwards arcing trajectory is what we're looking for, instead of the bottom one, since we are trying to calculate for instance, the effect of gravity, which is always pushing down when on earth. In fact, this same type of principle is what makes a negative probability a factor to ignore in string theory.
But what if there was a negative probability; what if, probability, already in it's own right, isn't a mathematical concept. It is impossible to divide by zero within mathematics because zero is merely a concept; it would be like trying to divide 8 by apples, or gravy, it's fundamentally impossible. Or it might be like negative zero, which has no sign to begin with (as it's neither positive nor negative). But what if, then, we as humans are simply doing the calculation wrong; what if negative probability stands for an idea or concept we are simply glossing over?
What would negative probability then, be? The probability something can't happen, or probability something won't happen? So, the negative probability of something landing on green would be 7/8; since the probability something won't happen is the opposite of the probability something will happen, it could just be that negative probabilities are opposites of regular probabilities; since it can be represented in a positive way, probabilities of which are defined as a concept of a chance of something happening between 0-100, then it's still possible to represent this as something concrete.
Since positives and negatives are more or less inverses of each other, such as positive and negative magnetic poles, or positive and negative particles, the reality is that while we few negative and positive as plus or minus, addition and subtraction, the reality is that when multiplying with concepts we are merely inferring the opposite of what an ordinary symbol is. Thus, a negative probability is simply the opposite probability. What this is exactly I'm not entirely sure. What I do know is that wavelength and frequency inversed, or perhaps where the wave meets is not impossible to get backwards. Thus, the way the string is vibrating does not necessarily imply more dimensions to vibrate in, but perhaps the opposite way it is vibrating. On the other hand, it may just imply negative mass or energy, which is capable of and likely existing in it's own right.
Questioning E=MC^2
Questioning E=MC^2
To be perfectly honest, E=MC^2 is entirely accurate; well,within it's specific parameters. Although the equation does not fully describe the phenomena, the basic principle of the total energy of the system being dependent on, or relative to, the speed of light, is entirely accurate. Massless particles for instance might have no mass, but this total energy level is more or less the same; determining the actual energy of the system is more complex, but it is still more or less E=MC^2. More importantly however is that it only applies to certain types of energy.
In matter anti-matter annihilation, they both release, more or less, about as much energy as is possible with matter. Thus, antimatter matter annihilation releases, more or less, almost E=MC^2; there is, energy equal to the object's mass traveling at the speed of light stored up within the materials. Thus one kilo reacting with another kilo of matter would produce, two kilos of mass worth of energy. However, what if the particles were traveling near the speed of light; perhaps, just 10% of the speed of light? While actually calculations would involve lorentz, suddenly, we have to consider, how is it possible that matter, which demonstrably already has E=MC^2 stored up inside of it, is traveling at any speed at all; let alone so close to the speed of light.
Hypothetically, it should be impossible for there to be more velocity, let alone something demonstrably close to the speed of light; obviously, matter couldn't possibly have more than E=MC^2; or could it? Within it's context, there is pent up, nuclear energy (and various other types) within the atom, that is released when the atom is annihilated. However, if it is also traveling at high velocity, doesn't that imply a large amount of kinetic energy, as well? The reality is that there are multiple forms of energy, that can be stored or be present, that do not directly interact with each other, at the time, that can exist, within the same amount of matter, at the same time.
But does this imply they can't happen at the same time? Or that something weird would should they collide? Something interesting to consider then would be if anti-matter collided with matter near the speed of light. Perhaps a few dozen particles or pieces of lead traveling in a large hadron collider. What if they did collide; the energy would be released, all at once, both forms, at the same time. Would it be possible then for more energy to be present, per unit of mass, than ordinarily possible; quite possibly, they could come to a stop completely during annihilation, of through changing forms lose momentum and thus stop moving this way; although we know that light does have a small amount of momentum.
Wouldn't this energy levels exceeding the speed of light cause infinite mass, or since neither particles have mass, would it mean that there isn't infinite mass? This would certainly conserve the aspect of mass and energy, and also verify the principle basis behind E = MC^2. Since the atom turns into radiation, it more or less loses mass (as it "changes" into energy), and thus impacting each other and possessing nuclear annihilation even when traveling near the speed of light means that more energy can be present, unit per unit (but perhaps not kilo per kilo, as the mass more or less disappears), but perhaps not in terms of mass. Which might be an interesting concept.
To be perfectly honest, E=MC^2 is entirely accurate; well,within it's specific parameters. Although the equation does not fully describe the phenomena, the basic principle of the total energy of the system being dependent on, or relative to, the speed of light, is entirely accurate. Massless particles for instance might have no mass, but this total energy level is more or less the same; determining the actual energy of the system is more complex, but it is still more or less E=MC^2. More importantly however is that it only applies to certain types of energy.
In matter anti-matter annihilation, they both release, more or less, about as much energy as is possible with matter. Thus, antimatter matter annihilation releases, more or less, almost E=MC^2; there is, energy equal to the object's mass traveling at the speed of light stored up within the materials. Thus one kilo reacting with another kilo of matter would produce, two kilos of mass worth of energy. However, what if the particles were traveling near the speed of light; perhaps, just 10% of the speed of light? While actually calculations would involve lorentz, suddenly, we have to consider, how is it possible that matter, which demonstrably already has E=MC^2 stored up inside of it, is traveling at any speed at all; let alone so close to the speed of light.
Hypothetically, it should be impossible for there to be more velocity, let alone something demonstrably close to the speed of light; obviously, matter couldn't possibly have more than E=MC^2; or could it? Within it's context, there is pent up, nuclear energy (and various other types) within the atom, that is released when the atom is annihilated. However, if it is also traveling at high velocity, doesn't that imply a large amount of kinetic energy, as well? The reality is that there are multiple forms of energy, that can be stored or be present, that do not directly interact with each other, at the time, that can exist, within the same amount of matter, at the same time.
But does this imply they can't happen at the same time? Or that something weird would should they collide? Something interesting to consider then would be if anti-matter collided with matter near the speed of light. Perhaps a few dozen particles or pieces of lead traveling in a large hadron collider. What if they did collide; the energy would be released, all at once, both forms, at the same time. Would it be possible then for more energy to be present, per unit of mass, than ordinarily possible; quite possibly, they could come to a stop completely during annihilation, of through changing forms lose momentum and thus stop moving this way; although we know that light does have a small amount of momentum.
Wouldn't this energy levels exceeding the speed of light cause infinite mass, or since neither particles have mass, would it mean that there isn't infinite mass? This would certainly conserve the aspect of mass and energy, and also verify the principle basis behind E = MC^2. Since the atom turns into radiation, it more or less loses mass (as it "changes" into energy), and thus impacting each other and possessing nuclear annihilation even when traveling near the speed of light means that more energy can be present, unit per unit (but perhaps not kilo per kilo, as the mass more or less disappears), but perhaps not in terms of mass. Which might be an interesting concept.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)