# April came two weeks earlier this year

1. Mar 16, 2017

### Demystifier

2. Mar 16, 2017

### blue_leaf77

Since you post it under BSM forum, I think it's therefore legitimate to ask what is the standard model of the theory of humor?

3. Mar 16, 2017

### Demystifier

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_humor
There are several standard models of humor, but they are all classical.

4. Mar 16, 2017

### PeroK

5. Mar 16, 2017

### Demystifier

All people like humor, so in theory all people should like dark humor. Yet, only a small fraction of people likes dark humor, which is one of the biggest mismatches between theory and experiment in psychology.

6. Mar 16, 2017

### strangerep

7. Mar 16, 2017

### rootone

Being a bit dim, I could never understand virtual jokes, although I do know that they must be fundamental objects for advanced AI. to happen.

Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
8. Mar 16, 2017

### mitchell porter

The joke is that the paper actually has nothing to do with physics. It's all just a linear algebra model of cognition. The paper could have been written without the word 'quantum' appearing once.

9. Mar 17, 2017

### Staff: Mentor

It is not in that group.
They just use pieces of mathematics also used in quantum theory.

10. Mar 17, 2017

### rubi

Psychologists have recently started to look into these quantum models. The point is that quantum probabilities are a generalization of classical probabilities that allow for the occurency of contextuality. In fact, contextuality is precisely the difference between quantum probabilities and classical probabilites. Psychology makes heavy use of statistics and hence it is natural that probability theories that allow for more general statistical features (such as i.e. entanglement) would eventually be applied outside of physics as well. I think this kind of research is exactly what needs to be done. Quantum mechanics is still kind of mysterious and if we can find examples of quantum statistics in other fields like psychology or maybe economics, we might also learn something about physics as well.

11. Mar 17, 2017

### Demystifier

I wouldn't agree, but that's not a thread on quantum foundations, so I will not elaborate.

12. Mar 17, 2017

### rubi

I mean this in a very precise mathematical sense. Classical probability theory is mathematically equivalent to quantum theory with only commuting observables. However, if you allow for non-commutativity, your theory will automatically be contextual (unless possibly $\mathrm{dim}(\mathcal H)=2$). All quantum mechanical phenomena are consequences of this non-commutativity and hence contextuality.

13. Mar 17, 2017

### Staff: Mentor

If this hadn't been posted by you, I would have slapped it with an "unacceptable sources" warning. Seriously...

14. Mar 17, 2017

### rubi

15. Mar 17, 2017

### Demystifier

But it's published in a peer reviewed journal with IF>2.

16. Mar 17, 2017

### OmCheeto

Not to mention "complex Dilbert space".

Dilbert spaces arise naturally and frequently in humour, typically as infinite(± 2)-dimensional ill-functioning office spaces.

17. Mar 17, 2017

### Staff: Mentor

I think you are mistaking Frontiers in physics with Frontiers of physics. The latter has an impact factor > 2, the former is not listed by TR, but used to be listed on Beall's list of predatory journals.

18. Mar 17, 2017

### Demystifier

You are absolutely right!

19. Mar 17, 2017

### ShayanJ

Last edited: Mar 17, 2017
20. Mar 31, 2017