MORE THAN

IMPOSSIBLE:
NEGATIVE AND COMPLEX PROBABILITIES
AND THEIR INTERPRETATION

Vasil Penchev
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute for the Study
of Societies and Knowledge (Institute for Philosophical
Research): Dept. of Logical Systems and Models
Vasildinev@gmail.com
Modal Metaphysics: Issues of the (Im)Possible IV
Bratislava, Slovakia (Klemensova 19)
August 30-51, 2016

More than impossible?

might mean more than impossible?
What

For example, that could be what happens without any cause or that
physical change which occurs without any physical force (interaction)
to act
Then, the quantity of the equivalent physical force, which would
cause the same effect, can serve as a measure of the complex
probability
Furthermore, the same effect is interpretable as re-ordering and thus
as a certain quantity of information
One can write a very intriguing equation:

Information
Relation of
probability
(distributions)
Synchronic viewpoint
Definition in Shannon
The space-time interpretation

of quantum information

The concept
of curved space-time

(Re-ordering)
Relation of orderings
Diachronic viewpoint
Definition in Kolmogorov
My presentation now

The concept
of physical force

More than impossible?

Of course, quantum mechanics
Quantum mechanics introduces those fluctuations,
the physical actions of which are commensurable
with the Plank constant
They happen by themselves without any cause even in
principle
Those causeless changes are both instable and
extremely improbable in the world perceived by our
senses immediately for the physical actions in our
world are much, much bigger than the Plank constant

The problem:
NEGATIVE AND COMPLEX PROBABILITY
LINKED TO FORCES IN SPECIAL AND GENERAL
RELATIVITY
FAQ:
What is the intrigue?
That cherished bridge between quantum
mechanics and general relativity (including
special one, or more exactly special relativity
including general one) built by stones of quantum
information

Kinematics for dynamics

Meaning that negative and complex probabilities which have
been already linked to physical forces in quantum mechanics
valid in the Plank scale, one should research that way for them
to be introduced in special and general relativity, which should
be valid in both macroscopic and microscopic (Planck) scale
This implies one to use only the kinematic formulation
neglecting the dynamical one for the latter involves mass and
energy right distinguishing the scales from each other
practically as the distances are unified as macroscopic
according to the real apparatuses for quantum phenomena

Reference frame as the key to

kinematics
Particularly, force is defined per a unit of mass (energy),
and therefore equated to acceleration after kinematic
consideration

Reference frame is the key concept as it is properly

kinematic
Still one restriction is representability in terms of quantum
information, and more especially, by the concept of qubit
One needs it for the consistency and coherence of the
considerations in quantum mechanics (and information)
and both special and general relativity

What a qubit is:

A qubit is defined as, where and are two

complex numbers so that, and are two

orthogonal subspaces of the complex Hilbert
space (abbreviated as cHs further)

For any two successive axes of cHs can be

interpreted as those, cHs or any point in it can be
represented as a series of qubits , correspondingly
empty or fulfilled by the values

Qubit as space-time and thus

kinematics

Any qubit is isomorphic to a unit ball in the usual 3D Euclidean

space if two points are chosen in that ball: the one in the ball
(including its surface, which is a unit sphere), and the other in
the surface
Thus, a qubit (being a 3D ball) means the same what Minkowski
space is a certain moment of time
That isomorphism is both elementary and crucial for our
consideration
Indeed, it guarantees the equivalent transfer of negative and
complex probabilities between quantum mechanics (the former,
left side of isomorphism) and both special and general
relativity (the latter, right side)

Im
Re

Im
Re

Minkowski
space
The
past
Imaginary

A qubit as an inertial reference

frame
Indeed, a qubit, already as a unit ball with two points

recorded in it, allows for another interpretation as an

inertial reference frame
The point (vector) within the ball corresponds to the
zero of frame and that on its surface to the speed of
inertial frame

The one-to-one mapping of the components of a qubit

and those of an inertial frame is what is implied:

Relative velocity:

Im
Re

Im
Re

This means:
complementarity
interpreted as
independence
(orthogonality)

Space position in :

Thus complementarity Relative velocity:

refers to the system

as a single
one whole
Thus
entanglement

refers to
the system
as
composed
by

subsystems

This
This means:
means:
entanglement
complementarity
interpreted
interpreted as
as
dependence
independence
(nonorthogonali
(orthogonality)
ty)

Space position in :

Another representation of
a qubit as an inertial frame
Any

qubit have three independent variables, e.g. ,

which can be interpreted e.g. as

Then two options appear as the initial position of
the inertial reference frame:
(accepted as a convention)
An additional and complementary qubit is necessary
to represent any initial position of the inertial
reference frame at issue
Even more, the former and latter (this)
representation can be unified as follows visualized:

Subsyste
System
ms
In Lagrange

Independence

In Hamilton

Dependence

Position
qubit

A bitA bit
0 1 01

Disjunction

Complementa

Overlap

Speed
qubit

Position
qubit

Entanglement

Subsyste
System
ms

Independence

Nonentangl

In Lagrange

In Hamilton

Dependence

Entangl

ednoninnertial
A set of
ed
A set of inertial
RFs
RFs
A bitAfor
bit Interaction or
0 1 01
Disjunction
Overlap potential force
field in
classical physic
speed
position
speed
position
Complementa
Entanglement

Subsyste
System
ms

General relativity

Dependence

A world line in
the smoothly curved
In Lagrange
Entangl
Minkowski space

ednoninnertial
A set of
to pseudo-Riemannian
RF
space
for
Interaction or
A
potential force
world
field in
line of A world
In Hamilton
classical physic
positio line of
speed
position
n
speed
Entanglement
Minkowski

The sense of the conventions

The convention means that the qubit is

correspondingly oriented according to the

reference frame unambiguously

Any nonzero rotation of the unit ball would define

a different inertial frame
The parameter is a conventionally chosen
ordinary moment
And thus a new and more than intriguing
equation:

A connection to kinematics
Further, the probability associable with the inertial

frame may be conventionally specified as so that

corresponds to the module of wave function just as in
the Max Born interpretation of it

Indeed, then or as kinematic momentum per a unit of

mass (energy) might be the length of an elementary
permutation defined as above, and its change in time
would represent acceleration as kinematic force
A birds eye view to the same:

The demarcation of general and

special relativity
Further, the unity of pure imaginary probability

and force as above allows of still one

interpretation of the relation of special and
general relativity

The new interpretation is consistent to the

standard one, but different from it
According to the latter, the demarcation line
between special and general relativity is right
the quantity of acceleration of the studied
reference frames: zero in inertial reference

All you need is tachyon

According to the new interpretation, one should

complement that distinction by the identification

of any hypothetical superluminal inertial frame
with just one certain noninertial subluminal
reference frame
The hypothetical particles with superluminal
velocity were called tachyons. The new
interpretation would add the identification of the
tachyons as accelerated subluminal particles

Now: nonStandard
standard
General relativity
interpretation
interpretation
Interpretation in Hamilton:
Interpretation in
Speed and position are two
Lagrange:
independent variables:
st
Speed
is
the
1
space-time is straight, but
derivative of
consists of two discrtely
position: space-time is
divided
subareas:
Minkowski
th subareas of it are necessary,
The real subarea
of
it
is
smooth,
space
t there are no accelerated RFs
redundant,
but
there
are
but curved: pseudoarbitrarily accelerated
RFs
That viewpoint implies reRiemannian
That
viewpoint
implies
forces
&
fo
orderings as forces being
mappings between fields: gravitational field is the unified a
universal
background
force
field,
th
the two subareas

Now: nonStandard
General relativity =
standard
interpretation
quantum
mechanics
interpretation
Interpretation in Hamilton:
Interpretation in Hamilton:
Speed and position are two
the qubit Hilbert space is the
independent variables:
normed nonstandard
space-time is straight, but
equivalent of Minkowski
consists of two discretely
space: each of both identical
subareas:
thdivided
subareas
of it areMinkowski
necessary,
Both subareas
dual spaces
are necessary
is transformed
in
t space
there are no accelerated RFs being
complementary
to
any of
both dual identical
each
other
That viewpoint implies respaces
The forces & force fields are
orderings as forces being
understood
mappings between
in an equivalent but opposed way
the two subareas
(like in a negative photo): as

Traditio
n ally
interpr
e te d i n
Lagran
ge

Forces & Force fields

Asymmetries &
Re-orderings

Quantum
mechanics

General
relativity
Symmetries &
conservations
Interactions

Traditio
nally
interpr
eted in
Hamilto
n

That is the axis of

t
oin rod p fo ectr
s
n
l
xe
t ra e e
e fi
Th that is th eld
on ic fi )
of
i
t
t
on
ma ne
g
cti
ma tera
(in

A new fundamental symmetry in cogniti

Conclu
sion ab
which already was visualized on t
out
quant
um gra
previous sli
vity:
wrong
in defin
ition

Gravity
is the n
image
egativ
symmetry to the diagonal:
of the
quantu
i
n
t
e
r
actions
m
else is necessary to be transformed
general relativity is transformed in quantum mechanics

f
o
m
t
p ym
e
c ns
n
o tio
c
e
a
h
T orm
f
n
i

u
q
(

t
n
a

y
r
t
e

t
i
b
)
um

It implies the symmetry

of general relativity
and quantum mechanics

An observer of a tachyon
Indeed,

special relativity identifies the pure imaginary

values of speed with those of a reference frame moving
with any superluminal relative velocity to an observer

The term superluminal, which means a real value, refers to

the relative speed of a hypothetical inertial reference frame
to an observer in any usual, subluminal inertial reference
frame
One can identified the physically interpreted gap between
the sub- and superluminal the mathematically interpreted
one between the real and imaginary dimensions of the
complex numbers

Minkowski
space
Youre
here!

The mathematical gap

between real and imaginary
numbers
Im an
accelerated
subluminal

No any
differenc
e!

Im an
angry
tachyon!!!
The physical gap
between tachyons and
subluminal particles

The observer seeing both physically

and mathematically
That observer should register pure imaginary values as
to the velocities in the other, observed reference frame
According to the generally accepted model of special
relativity in Minkowski space, time is purely imaginary
unlike distance, which is real
This implies for speed to be pure imaginary as time,
and acceleration to be real as distance
The scholia is: one and the same gap is seen as that
between different dimensions whether
mathematical(ly) or physical(ly)

Dimension 2

Dimension 2

Mathematically
Dimension 1

Mathematically

Dimension 1

Physically

Superluminal velocity as subluminal

acceleration
Then, an observer in an inertial subluminal reference frame
might not distinguish pure imaginary values of velocity from
accelerations in other reference frames for both superluminal
velocity and acceleration mean one and the same though
expressed in two different kinds of terms: correspondingly
mathematical or physical
Acceleration being a quantity different from velocity means a
new dimension expressed physically
Superluminal velocity equated to pure imaginary velocity
according to special relativity means a new dimension
expressed mathematically, namely that of imaginary axis in
relation to the real one

Gravitational field
Further, the accelerated inertial frames already
according to general relativity implies a force
field indistinguishable from the gravitational one
in turn represented by curving Minkowski space
to pseudo-Riemannian one
Any tensor associable with a point in pseudoRiemannian space is representable as the tensor
product of vectors of Minkowski space as in its
real as in its imaginary domain
Particularly, the tensor of curvature in a point

In terms of Minkowski space

Then, the formalism of general relativity is
interpretable as presenting transformations
within both domains of Minkowski space
separately or together unlike that of special
relativity restricted only to the one: that
associated to the subluminal area usually
identified with the imaginary cone (domain)
The pair of contra- and covariant 4-vectors as to
pseudo-Riemannian space is isomorphic to that
of

THE PHILOSOPHICAL
INTERPRETATION:
THE UNITED NATURE OF FORCES AND
PROBABILITIES IN:
QUANTUM MECHANICS AND
INFORMATION
SPECIAL AND GENERAL RELATIVITY
PROBABILITY AND INFORMATION THEORY

The forces in physics as probabilities

in mathematics
The introduction of complex probabilities unifies
forces and probabilities as two dimensions,
whether mathematically or physically
interpreted, of one and the same nature, that of
complex probabilities
Then both more than impossible and even the
squire root of that more than impossible acquire
a clear mathematical and physical meaning:
This means that minimal force able to reorder
the entities in that more than impossible way,

One and the same, universal

observer
All physical forces (interactions) as in quantum mechanics (and
therefore in the Standard model) and in special or general
relativity are a particular case of the generalized probabilities
and relative to the classical, one-dimensional probabilities

Furthermore, the two dimensional (or complex) probabilities

unify the subjective probabilities of the observer and the
objective probabilities of the observed, and even the one
dimension might be ascribed to the former, the other to the
latter
This allows of unifying further the concept of observer in
relativity and quantum mechanics.

Hmm, what observer is:

The concept of observer whether in quantum
mechanics or special & general relativity means two
dimensions and thus a gap between them, which in
modern Western philosophy are designated as
subject and object
One can even think of observer as bit or qubit of
information, the two or infinitely many alternatives for
choice of which are interpreted or renamed
philosophically as subject and object: disjunctive
for the bit(s) of information or for Descartess dualism;

The generalized observer as

the philosophical subject as totality
observing object inside or outside of it
Totality in definition is what is the same both inside & outsid
i.e. topologically, that mathematical object

the internality of which coincides with its externality

Information and its unit philosophically:
TOTALITY
TIME
SUBJECT (ITS INTERNALITY)
OBJECT (ITS
EXTERNALITY)

conclude that (quantum) information is the quantity o

The observed inside and outside

Those quantum mechanics and special & general relativity,
which are unified on the base of quantum information and
qubits, should unify also their concepts of observer
The intention of observer is the invariance of both viewpoints,
outside and inside, of the subjective and objective, and
particularly, of subjective and objective probability as in
quantum mechanics
The following metaphor might visualize that invariance: the
observer in special & general relativity observes the other
reference frame outside, and that in quantum mechanics
observes the quantum entity inside the apparatus
That invariance implies that both should observer one and the
same in the final analysis by means of quantum information

Generalized observer
(from the viewpoint of quantum information)

What is observed are smooth

What is observed are smooth
motions and discrete
probability distributions
e
f
d
o
i
(deterministic)
and
discrete
e
s
d
i
e
t
s
n
I
u
s
m
u
t
O
a
a
probability
r
(quantum)
r
bserver
Observ
f
appa
f
o
leaps
leaps
om the view point of
(from the view point
uantum
mechanics: apparatus)S & G relativity: reference fram

Generalized observer
(from the viewpoint of quantum information)

The concept of qubit as

the
normed superposition of
two
successive axes:

The concept of qubit as

the
unit ball with two its
points chosen by a
certain rule
: two its circles, one of
which great, and the
circle 0+1 is great as

The border melting in information

In that final analysis, the border between the physical theories
of quantum mechanics and those of special and general
relativity melts in probability and information theory turning out
to underlie both
That seeming maybe ridiculous viewpoint can be visualized so:
What is (i.e. [the] being) is (quantum) information. It implies
the kinematic viewpoint as universal. In turn, it generates the
dynamic viewpoint dividing the entities in the scale of energy
(mass) and thus time. Further, the part of micro-energies in that
scale is studied by quantum mechanic, and that of macroenergies by special and general relativity. Back to the kinematic
viewpoint of (quantum) information both mean one and the
same

The structure of the paper itself

instead of conclusions

 Section 1 introduces the concept of complex (negative in

particular) probability and its possible physical
interpretation as both force and information
The prehistory and background (Section 2) include the
generalization and utilization of negative and complex
probabilities in quantum mechanics and probability theory
The narrow purpose of the paper is to be introduced
negative and complex probability relevant to special and
general relativity and thus to events in our usual perceptive
world rather than to microscopic or micro-energetic events
studied by quantum mechanics (Section 3)
Section 4 compares their use in quantum mechanics and
information, signal theory, probability theory, and in special
and general relativity
Section 3 & 4 almost coincide with this presentation

The paper:
You can find the entire paper in Internet typing the title
More than impossible: negative and complex probability
and their interpretation
in any search engine such as Google, Bing, etc.

Thank you so much for your kind attention!

Any questions or comments, please!