| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Did you HAVE to say 100% certain? |
Certain on its own would have done nicely...It's a pleonasm to say you're 100% certain.
But yes, I couldn't resist it anyway. ;)
| quote: | | Where are you in belgium? I wouldn't mind to be invited for a listen, I'll even bring your favorite beer. |
You're welcome anytime...Feel free to send me an e-mail through the forum, Jan.
Cheers,;)
EDIT: SY would rather have us drink wine, I s'pose. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
LOL...
As subtle as my Tolstoi line...Well done indeed.
Cheers, ;)
EDIT:...Too fast too, huh? |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
If this whole thing would be only psychological, in many instances the difference should be random, depending on expectations of the tester. However it is almost never a case. |
Peter, I agree with your reasoning, which reasononing grounds why I give so-called subjective reports (call them reviews) a certain validity. I once asked a member on this forum to list for me what he felt were better and worse capacitors, sound-wise, and his list corresponded with mine. I wasn't surprised by the coincidence.
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
If I perceive/hear those differences and at least a few hundred other people do as well, chances are there is a difference.
If we can't measure that in our usual ways then we're quite likely not using the proper tools.
|
Frank, I agree that performance parameters of individual components can be measured, and that these components can be distinguished by these measurements. Heck, the components you mention---Vishays and ptfe capacitors---were developed largely for military use, ie, for better overall performance of the circuits in which they are placed (leading to the banal inference that these components would similarly improve audio circuits, electrons being electrons). That being said, I am unaware of a measurement or measuring device that can pinpoint the difference Vishays and ptfe capacitors make in an audio circuit, once they're plugged into that circuit, that is. Frank, do you know of such measurement? |
|
|
| janneman |
Milspec component specifications generally refer to reliability in harsh environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, shocks). The actual electrical specs like tan-delta, noise, etc are generally not so important as milspec equipment is usually heavily overdimensioned anyway.
But having a critical component fail, say in the middle of a dogfight or while trying to outshoot an enemy tank can ruin your entire day.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | Heck, the components you mention---Vishays and ptfe capacitors---were developed largely for military use, ie, for better overall performance of the circuits in which they are placed (leading to the banal inference that these components would similarly improve audio circuits, electrons being electrons). |
Military AND aerospace IMO...Which are closely related as far as the military goes...
I think where these components stand out from the 'crowd" is that, other than being tough as nails under all kinds of circumstances, is that both come closer to the theoretical ideal component.
The PTFE cap is closer to the ideal C and the Vishay resistor (let's take a S102 BF) is closer to the ideal R.
So, what you need to look at from an audio POV is where "ordinary" components deviate from this ideal: parasitic inductance, DA, magnetic endcaps, etc.
All of which can be readily measured, some manufacturers will even state averages on the specsheets.
| quote: | | That being said, I am unaware of a measurement or measuring device that can pinpoint the difference Vishays and ptfe capacitors make in an audio circuit, once they're plugged into that circuit, that is. Frank, do you know of such measurement? |
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by fdegrove
I think where these components stand out from the 'crowd" is that, other than being tough as nails under all kinds of circumstances, is that both come closer to the theoretical ideal component.
|
Yes, those components are designed for overall more accurate---ie, less distorted---electrical throughput or operating. I've had several conversations with the chief design engineer at Component Research Corp in Santa Monica about their capacitors (CRC is a large military/aerospace supplier). He told me, in his professional judgment---derived, as it was, from extensive testing---teflon capacitors are more electronically accurate than capacitors using any other dielectric. He also told me he knows of no other dielectric besting teflon on the accuracy parameter. "Accuracy," here, is as you said gauged by reference to ideal C. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
All I'm saying is that if Peter (and some others) would take some time to do some actual scientifically valid testing of various experiments, then some of us would be more inclined to try them.
As it is, some of the results are very, very hard to explain by means of the laws of physics.
I think some of what Peter is doing is kewl (there is nothing wrong with trying things) but unfortunately there is no way to tell whether any of his experiments have actually found anything other than placebo effect.
And yes, a few posts back, Peter demanded that I do the tests myself, knowing full well that I don't have the budget for the exotic components that he is using. He has the resources to do it, but he apparently won't. |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
fdegrove said
Hi,
Does a polyproplyne cap measure the same as a ptfe cap?
It doesn't.
Does a carbon film resistor measure the same as a (bulkfoil?) Vishay metalfilm?
It doesn't.
Would I hear the difference between the two in a blind test?
Quite likely.
A simple test: build yourself two amps, one using same brand carbon films, the other Vishays and listen.
If your system has high enough resolution and the amps as well chances are you'll hear the difference.
If I perceive/hear those differences and at least a few hundred other people do as well, chances are there is a difference.
If we can't measure that in our usual ways then we're quite likely not using the proper tools.
[/QUOTE][/COLOR]
If there's an audible difference it will be a measureable difference.
It's odd that tweaks seem to always be positive in their effect. |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | If even one person hears a difference, and it's a real difference it will measurable. |
How do you measure that?
| quote: | | The only time you should hear a difference from capacitors is when they are of different values. IOW if you replace a carbon film cap with a Vishay of the same vlaue they will sound the same. |
Should is the operative word one would think....
However, there are many different types of filmcaps using different types of film and winding methods resulting in not so subtle audible AND measurable differences.
For the record: there is no such thing as a carbon film cap and the Vishays we were refering to are resistors, not caps.
| quote: | | Finding 2 caps that measure the same is more of challenge but certainly not impossible. |
Depends on what you measure I suppose.
C value is easy enough though.
| quote: | | The thing I find most interesting about tweaks is that they never seem to be bad, the always seem to be percieved as an improvement. |
That's the idea, yes...The rest of the stuff we try in our spare time is discarded as "not such a bright idea".
Blue on blue, however is a really nice touch...:cannotbe:
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| Bas Horneman |
Funny...this was just posted over at the AA.
"You are correct, there are good and bad engineers. However I do not think there are many great engineers working on mass-market or even higher end audio. Several years ago while working as a physician I had the opportunity to talk with many engineers. I was just getting into tube audio DIY at the time and had noticed that different kinds and brands of resistors sounded different. I'm an amateur pianist and have fairly good set of ears and this phenomenon aroused my curiosity. I asked engineer after engineer why different resistors might sound different in a circuit and they all looked at me blankly and said "they don't". Well it was obvious to me that they did so I kept on asking until I found in engineer who said "oh, you know why that is....." and proceeded to give me a phenomenally clear and concise lecture regarding the fact that no resistor is a perfect resistor and that they all also have inductance and capacitance and how this would affect the sound. After the lesson I looked at him and asked him why the other engineers had said there was no difference in sound from resistor to resistor. He looked at me and said dismissively "contract engineers". This particular gentleman was an engineer at the forefront of his particular technology and had his own company which was quite well known. The problem is that engineers like this are few and far between and even fewer of these have been interested in audio. Personally I wish more of them were involved as some of the mysteries might actually be better understood. In the meantime I trust my ears.
"
The original post.
http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/t...ages/61664.html |
|
|
| john curl |
Some of you are catching on. ;-) Really! For example, I don't know WHY pointed feet should sound better than rubber feet, but many of us find it to be true. Also, many of us find that we often 'agree' on the sound quality of a certain component, even if we have never met each other.
For the record, I have thousands of mil spec components that sound LOUSY, in audio products. Want to buy some? I can give you a good deal! This is your chance to prove me wrong. ;-) |
|
|
| john curl |
| Bas, I don't know how to prove this to you, BUT I have hundreds, if not thousands, of resistors that are mil spec, beautiful, and with gold plated leads. Many have a clear 'glass' case so that you can even see the resistance element. I made a preamp with these resistors about 25 years ago. It was a disappointment. Later, I made similar preamps with 10 cent, 1% Resista metal film resistors, and the results were spectacular! I won several awards. Want to buy some of my gold plated mil spec resistors? I will sell them cheap! |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | For the record, I have thousands of mil spec components that sound LOUSY, in audio products. |
Sure..
I can probably also tell you why they sound lousy if I can get my hands on them.
It's only where milspec requirements AND audio requirements coincide and are applied to the manufacture of that component that you have a good chance for it to sound fine IMHO.
| quote: | | For example, I don't know WHY pointed feet should sound better than rubber feet, but many of us find it to be true. |
While I wouldn't say they invariably sound better under any audio gear, one could say that more often than not this pointy critters make for a better sound than just ordinary rubber feet.
There are so many tricks for isolating equipment that defy logic but there's often a good explanation for it.
Thanks for the quote, Bas. That sums it up quite nicely.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| diy_audio_fo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
That is correct, if you want to do it scientifically and generalize matters.
But music is much of a subjective experience and if some accesories/methods/practices enhance that experience, I don't see a reason to necessarily test everything with blind tests. Actually, if it happened that blind test shows that I'm unable to differenciate the tweaks, it might have tremendous psychological influence on my perception. Something I wouldn't like to occur, as I'm pretty happy with the things as they are now.
|
Several years ago in Italy was sold some wine "corrected" with methylic alcohol (IIRC) to enance taste.
The fact was eventually caught by our FDA (Food and Drug Admin) as methylic alcohol is dangerous for human health and the news went on the newspapers.
An old man who has being drinking that wine for years was suggested by his daughter not to continue to drink that wine.
He refused and continued to drink the wine telling that the wine tasted good.
Eventually the old man got blind.
Are we shure that listening to sound "corrected" with spikes, cry'ed cables and snake oil doesn't make us mind blind?
Isn't better to have our wine/sound tested by our FDA/SDA (Sound and Drug Admin)? |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by diy_audio_fo
Several years ago in Italy was sold some wine "corrected" with methylic alcohol (IIRC) to enance taste.
The fact was eventually caught by our FDA (Food and Drug Admin) as methylic alcohol is dangerous for human health and the news went on the newspapers.
An old men who has being drinking that wine for years was suggested by his daughter not to continue to drink that wine.
He refused and continued to drink the wine telling that the wine tasted good.
Eventually the old men got blind.
Are we shure that listening to sound "corrected" with spikes, cry'ed cables and snake oil doesn't make us mind blind?
Isn't better to have our wine/sound tested by our FDA/SDA (Sound and Drug Admin)? |
I wonder if that man got blind if his daughter didn't suggest he shouldn't continue drinking that wine? |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
And yes, a few posts back, Peter demanded that I do the tests myself, knowing full well that I don't have the budget for the exotic components that he is using. He has the resources to do it, but he apparently won't. |
Hey, if you think it's so kewl but you can't afford it, drop me a line and I'll send you some of those goodies for testing. But no more excuses. |
|
|
| john curl |
| Bas, I don't know how to prove this to you, BUT I have hundreds, if not thousands, of resistors that are mil spec, beautiful, and with gold plated leads. Many have a clear 'glass' case so that you can even see the resistance element. I made a preamp with these resistors about 25 years ago. It was a disappointment. Later, I made similar preamps with 10 cent, 1% Resista metal film resistors, and the results were spectacular! I won several awards. Want to buy some of my gold plated mil spec resistors? I will sell them cheap! |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | I wonder if that man got blind if his daughter didn't suggest he shouldn't continue drinking that wine? |
Methyl alcohol will get anyone blind in the long run.
| quote: | | Are we shure that listening to sound "corrected" with spikes, cry'ed cables and snake oil doesn't make us mind blind? |
I agree that you should have a solid, well known, reference for comparison's sake if you want absolute neutrality from your system.
Other than that, audio is and always will be a "subjective" experience.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| diy_audio_fo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
I wonder if that man got blind if his daughter didn't suggest he shouldn't continue drinking that wine? |
Ask FDA
(I hope I have understood your question) |
|
|
| diy_audio_fo |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
Bas, I don't know how to prove this to you, BUT I have hundreds, if not thousands, of resistors that are mil spec, |
M2A2 General Dynamics is the best of the world and is certainly mil spec but will never win at Indianapolis |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
| quote: | Hi,
quote:
If even one person hears a difference, and it's a real difference it will measurable.
How do you measure that?
Frequency response.
quote:
The only time you should hear a difference from capacitors is when they are of different values. IOW if you replace a carbon film cap with a Vishay of the same vlaue they will sound the same.
Should is the operative word one would think....
However, there are many different types of filmcaps using different types of film and winding methods resulting in not so subtle audible AND measurable differences.
For the record: there is no such thing as a carbon film cap and the Vishays we were refering to are resistors, not caps.
Yes, of course Vishay's are from North Creek IIRC. Thye are also non-inductive. In speaker xovers caps are caps as long as they have the same vlaue.
quote:
Finding 2 caps that measure the same is more of challenge but certainly not impossible.
Depends on what you measure I suppose.
C value is easy enough though.
quote:
The thing I find most interesting about tweaks is that they never seem to be bad, the always seem to be percieved as an improvement.
That's the idea, yes...The rest of the stuff we try in our spare time is discarded as "not such a bright idea".
But so much of what is claimed to be a tweak and therefore a bright idea, doesn't pass the smell test. Green pens, coins on speakers, Shakti Stones, etc.
Blue on blue, however is a really nice touch...
Still learning, sorry.
Cheers,
__________________
Frank
|
|
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | How do you measure that?
Frequency response. |
Abslolutely not in all cases.
Frequency response doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long shot.
| quote: | | In speaker xovers caps are caps as long as they have the same vlaue. |
Oh no, no way....Sorry.
Try the following test on a multi-way passive x-over:
Assuming you have ordinary non-polar caps in the x-over in series with the signal in the x-over, replace the one(s) in the tweeter section with good quality polypropylenes and notice how the speaker all of a sudden sounds unbalanced. (Bright)
| quote: | | But so much of what is claimed to be a tweak and therefore a bright idea, doesn't pass the smell test. Green pens, coins on speakers, Shakti Stones, etc. |
Mostly, I spoke for what I think up myself or can at least try at home after reading about it somewhere.
Something that does make sense and is easily tried at home without the need to buy anything out of the ordinary is the green feltpen, for instance.
Tiptoe style cones can be great to experiment with as well and don't cost an arm and a leg either.
There must be at least a few dozen of things that are easily tried
and don't demand a financial effort, just some elbow grease.
Ever tried solid core instead of multistrand wire?
Magnet wire instead of PVC insulated wire?
The list is endless....
I wish I still had my copies of the long defunct Hifi-Answers, it had really interesting sections on just this kind of tweaks.
There are charlatans in every business surely but they usually don't last for long. In the meantime it's wise to ask around what others think before sending any green ones their way.
| quote: | | Still learning, sorry. |
No problem.
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
| quote: | Peter Daniel
Actually, if it happened that blind test shows that I'm unable to differenciate the tweaks, it might have tremendous psychological influence on my perception. Something I wouldn't like to occur, as I'm pretty happy with the things as they are now. |
It is so surprising that you admit that actually finding out that you could be wrong about some of your findings would be so pyschologically devastating, but it really is consistent with your actions and prior statements.
I really don't understand why you would rather go on fooling yourself (and others) instead of actually getting to the truth. If you started doing some scientific testing, you may have some findings that cannot be detected, but in the long run you will get taken much more seriously.
Given the large number of things that you have tried, at least a few of them may be good. I am ever so envious of your audio budget, I really wish I could be trying as many things as yo do. |
|
|
| Magura |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
It is so surprising that you admit that actually finding out that you could be wrong about some of your findings would be so pyschologically devastating, but it really is consistent with your actions and prior statements.
|
I once made a pair of super interconnects, which I was very pleased with untill I made a blind test, and found that they were just the same as the previous set. Sometimes I wish I had never made that test, those interconnects were soooo great sounding prior to the test ;) I didn't try to sell them prior to the blind test though.
Magura:) |
|
|
| Ken L |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
If you started doing some scientific testing........in the long run you will get taken much more seriously. |
I will suggest you take this advice yourself
| quote: | Originally posted by Peter Daniel
Hey, if you think it's so kewl but you can't afford it, drop me a line and I'll send you some of those goodies for testing. But no more excuses. |
You were on Peter's case because he hadn't done any testing, then said you couldn't afford the parts.
So he's offered to send you some parts so _you_ can do some testing
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
.......I really wish I could be trying as many things as yo do. |
Peter has made at least part of that possible with his generous offer, yet you have glossed over it, ignored the offer and continue to be critical of him.
The ball is in your court - either have him send you the parts and go from there or get off of his case.
Regards
Ken L |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
I really don't understand why you would rather go on fooling yourself (and others) instead of actually getting to the truth. |
Wow. The Truth. I love that. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
It is so surprising that you admit that actually finding out that you could be wrong about some of your findings would be so pyschologically devastating, but it really is consistent with your actions and prior statements.
|
You are very selective in your posting. you don't bother with follows ups on the things people ask you.
If you read my disclaimer, in a same post, you would actually notice that I don't admit anything, I just take some possibilities into account.
And that's actually the biggest difference between us: you don't even know other possibilities might exist. |
|
|
| Peter Daniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
And yes, a few posts back, Peter demanded that I do the tests myself, knowing full well that I don't have the budget for the exotic components that he is using. He has the resources to do it, but he apparently won't. |
That is quite interesting reflection.
The guy admits that he has no budget for buying expensive components for testing, yet he wastes 2 days of everybodys time for actually arguing about the sound of those components.
This is like a journey (inside your mind) into a twilight zone ;) |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I will be building something shortly. I expect to be getting a settlement from Microsoft any day now (really, not kidding). It should be enough to pay off some credit cards and let me build both a sub and a new amplifier. I may also build an amp for the sub, but I may just use a good plate amp for that.
You betcha I will be testing tweaks on these things very carefully before I make any claims.
Yes, the egg is dripping down my face, but I am also not claiming anything that appears to have no physical cause, either.
This is why I have cited other people that HAVE done tests, or posted pages from authoritative web links when I was making many of my points. I don't have to have done the tests myself, there is nothing wrong with citing other works.
I haven't been making anything up, btw. |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
| I missed that part about Peter offering me some parts to test. If so, it is a very generous offer. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
I want the Great Randi's money. If I were to identify the Brilliant Pebble effect, in my listening room, 10 times out of 10 tries could I rightfully claim the money. Is he good for it? How legitimate is this guy anyway? From what I have read at his website it would seem that to qualify for this offer the phenomena in question must be of a paranormal variety. It is implied at audio sites that products like Shakti Stones and Brilliant Pebbles would be eligible. Is this the truth? Or is it a disingenuous contrivance?
I have read the first 14 pages of this thread thinking I would stay up late and read it all, and then I realized there are 83 pages total. Are the pages from 15 onward redundant? What I have learned from these 14 pages is that John Curl is the most reasonable poster on this thread and I like him a lot. Also this SY guy is gracious, kind and discerning, perfect qualities for a moderator IMO.
Well, time for bed now. Good night.
P.S. I will have some Shakti Hallographs in about a week. I will let you all know if they are worthwhile or not...wait just a second here, even if I think they are worthwhile, how would I ever possibly prove it? |
|
|
| analog_sa |
| quote: | | I want the Great Randi's money |
The Great Randi is in the business of not paying the mil. I have the feeling that he's very good at not doing it :) Rather consult a lawyer first. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | I have read the first 14 pages of this thread thinking I would stay up late and read it all, and then I realized there are 83 pages total. Are the pages from 15 onward redundant? |
They have been redundant from page 1 onwards. There has been a ton of threads fighting over these issues, yet no one's mind has been changed as a result. Discussions invariably degrade into issues of semantics and plain ad hominem attacks.| quote: | | wait just a second here, even if I think they are worthwhile, how would I ever possibly prove it? |
Double blind test, the detailed procedure of which both you and the examining skeptic agree upon. Post said procedure here for discussion first. Check out Jon Risch's coomments at Audioasylum on how a blind test might be conducted to deal with some of the issues that detractors raise. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
...Double blind test, the detailed procedure of which both you and the examining skeptic agree upon. Post said procedure here for discussion first. Check out Jon Risch's coomments at Audioasylum on how a blind test might be conducted to deal with some of the issues that detractors raise. |
Perfect, where do you recommend I post for discussion?
Now, I'm really going to bed. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | The Great Randi is in the business of not paying the mil. I have the feeling that he's very good at not doing it :) Rather consult a lawyer first. |
Once again, no logical argument is contained here, just attacks on the integrity of someone with a dissenting view.
The Great Randi doesn't need to worry about paying up, as he full well knows that he won't ever need to, as the crackpots' claims are empty -- I wouldn't have donated to his organization if I thought otherwise. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
...The Great Randi doesn't need to worry about paying up, as he full well knows that he won't ever need to, as the crackpots' claims are empty -- I wouldn't have donated to his organization if I thought otherwise. |
Cool, this is real? Is a product like Brilliant Pebbles eligible? It wouldn't seem to be based on the offer I read, but people seem to push it out there as a dare quite frequently. Are they qualified to speak for the Randi person?
OK, I didn't actually go to bed when I said I would. I am now though. |
|
|
| Prune |
I'm under the impression that Randi's offer only stands for claims of paranormal abilities. I'm not sure that these audio issues qualify, but when I think of, say, the Quantum Purifiers, I wonder...
I was suggesting a blind test organized by the diyAudio community, using procedures agreed upon in this forum. I'd be willing to contribute a donation towards such a thing, if I agree with the procedure (as I'm sure would be others here). Perhaps you should start a new thread (post link here). Instead of the usual meetups, why not have a blind testing meetup? |
|
|
| john curl |
Why is it that you people have to attack these tweaks and mods, without knowing ANYTHING about them? What is your payoff?
For the record, the Brilliant Pebbles are alleged to damp acoustic vibration. I have been linked to several websites that imply that this is for real. Have any of you actually learned ANYTHING about what you criticize?
I have known the designer for years, and he has a degree in physics, like I do, so it is easy for us to relate about this subject. What about the rest of you? Do you have the background necessary? If so, have you looked into this particular subject area? Get some facts folks, or at least try something, before trashing the component. |
|
|
| Prune |
Mr Curl, I hope that you are not referring to me. I've only mentioned one product here, that in my mind stands out.
Who cares if this person has a degree in a hard science? So did Fred Hoyle, yet he persisted pushing his Steady State view of cosmology despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary. The supposed method of action of a component or gadget, even if there is one, is irrelevant in the context I'm discussing. What is relevant is whether a difference is demonstrable, or just psychological bias. While I agree with whoever said (SE was it?) that if psychological bias is the cause, it still subjectively sounds better and the expense is thus worth it to some, this is a disservice to those who would not want to spend the money on a placebo. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
All I'm saying is that if Peter (and some others) would take some time to do some actual scientifically valid testing of various experiments, then some of us would be more inclined to try them. |
Surely you are aware of a variety of tests that show drastic electronic differences between various components (especially capacitors) and of the extant tests that showed that at least SOME of these are audible under bind conditions?
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
As it is, some of the results are very, very hard to explain by means of the laws of physics. |
Actually, many are explainable by the laws of physics, but they are not explainable by the dogmatic religious position that all that is audible is measurable with a very limited set of tests (eg THD & FR).
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
And yes, a few posts back, Peter demanded that I do the tests myself, knowing full well that I don't have the budget for the exotic components that he is using. He has the resources to do it, but he apparently won't. |
Actually, you surely do not need the most excotic components to make tests. In many cases Peter (and others) show a grading of quality over a range of components and often those near the top of the table tend to be mostly high grade (but not excessively priced) industrial componentry. So, what you are claiming is a simple cop-out.
And there are reasons for that cop-out. You actually DONT WANT TO KNOW. You WANT things to be as you expect them to be, any intrusion of reality nonwithstanding.
Sayonara |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | Surely you are aware of a variety of tests that show drastic electronic differences between various components (especially capacitors) and of the extant tests that showed that at least SOME of these are audible under bind conditions? |
I'm sure no one is disputing that.
| quote: | | Actually, many are explainable by the laws of physics, but they are not explainable by the dogmatic religious position that all that is audible is measurable with a very limited set of tests (eg THD & FR). |
What about metrics designed to correlate with perception (an example is this)? Specifically, would you agree with the statement that in theory it is possible to perform a set of measurements that fully encompasses, as you say, 'all that is audible'?
| quote: | | You actually DONT WANT TO KNOW. You WANT things to be as you expect them to be, any intrusion of reality nonwithstanding. |
Them's fightin' words! :) |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
I'm sure no one is disputing that. |
The gentleman abbreviated the same way as the current US prezs, seemingly does.
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
What about metrics designed to correlate with perception (an example is this)? |
What about it? It still measures one aspect only and much of the reasoning behind this has been known since the 1950's and has been ignored since then.
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
Specifically, would you agree with the statement that in theory it is possible to perform a set of measurements that fully encompasses, as you say, 'all that is audible'? |
As I take the position (fundamentally) that practically EVERYTHING is possible, absolutely yes. Or in other word I believe that all audible phenomenae are caused by physical processes that can be qualified and quantified. However, the establishment and defenders of the orthodoxy seem more interrested in pelicanising any observation countering their FR & THD is all that matters Mantra than in actually qualifying and quantifying things beyound thei simple and utterly stupid dogma.
Sayonara |
|
|
| TNT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
As I take the position (fundamentally) that practically EVERYTHING is possible, absolutely yes.
|
So, all expensive tweaks could be riding the placebo wave ?
/ |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | As I take the position (fundamentally) that practically EVERYTHING is possible, absolutely yes. |
I say that's crazy talk. Hell, even theoretically not everything is possible. Might I suggest Impossibility: The Limits of Science and the Science of Limits by John D. Barrow, and specifically about the limits of our own minds, both from information theory and physics:
A Refutation of Penrose's Godelian Case Against Articial Intelligence
Why I am not a Super Turing Machine
Cognition and the Computational Power of Connectionist Networks
Turing vs Super-Turing
Universal Limits on Computation
Fundamental Physical Limits on Computation
Undecidability Everywhere
On the Computational Capabilities of Physical Systems
(These apply since the mind is what the brain does, and the brain is part of the physical universe; the laws of physics are computational and therefore any computer with a sufficient memory capacity can simulate any physical system to whatever degree of precision is necessary, and BTW this degree is not infinite as time/space are not infinitely differentiable, see The World According to Quantum Mechanics on the LANL preprint archive at xxx.lanl.gov
I can do proper citations, or email pdfs if anyone requests.) |
|
|
| Wellfed |
Anyone care to comment on the James Randi "dare" phenomena? In case I haven't been clear enough, it is readily apparent that Mr. Randi's challenge has been misapplied to phenomena not covered by the challenge in the first place.
Prune, would you happen to know if Mr. Randi is aware that his thesis has been misappropriated by these knuckleheads? If so, do you know what he thinks about the practice? I apologize if my earlier comments were construed as casting aspersions on Mr. Randi. This truly was not my intent. My aspersions are intended only for those misappropriating Mr. Randi's challenge. |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
[SNIP]Undecidability Everywhere
On the Computational Capabilities of Physical Systems[/I]
(These apply since the mind is what the brain does, and the brain is part of the physical universe; the laws of physics are computational and therefore any computer with a sufficient memory capacity can simulate any physical system to whatever degree of precision is necessary, and BTW this degree is not infinite as time/space are not infinitely differentiable, see[SNIP] |
Prune,
I disagree that the physical world can be simmed to any required precision if you have enough computing power and memory. The physical universe is decidedly unpredictable because of fundamental uncertainty limits (see Heisenberg). The first line in the quote fragment above also refers to it.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
You are mistaken, as QM indeterminism doesn't change a thing in that regard.
You misunderstood my argument, which is understandable as I squeezed it into a line. The thing is that quantum uncertainty merely brings randomness into the equation, and that does not increase the information processing (including mental) capability of any physical system. Penrose explains that well in Shadows of the Mind (though he then goes to present other arguments against computational mind, though they have been formally refuted as per the article whose title I posted above). Any random sequence possible can be reproduced by a computer (the issue that a truly random sequence is uncompressible and must be encoded in the program/data is irrelevant to the argument here, as the goal is not to predict exactly which of these sequences will occur; that is impossible anyway). The point is that any possible set of quantum states and their time revolution can be encoded as a computer program, and thus any physical system is computational. I have no choice but to summarize here; check out some of the articles I named for a more detailed view (especially the second and third).
From information theory, there is no difference between the capabilities of deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines. Indeed, we as well as actual computers are even more limited than Turing machines, as we do not have arbitrarily large memory -- we are merely finite automata.
Super-Turing automata can be conceptualized mathematically, but it is due to QM exactly that they cannot be physically implemented -- they need arbitrary precision real numbers, which are not at all 'real' (sorry, I just had to pun this). |
|
|
| Prune |
Wellfed said:| quote: | | it is readily apparent that Mr. Randi's challenge has been misapplied to phenomena not covered by the challenge in the first place. |
That seems to be the case. |
|
|
| Kuei Yang Wang |
Konnichiwa,
| quote: | Originally posted by TNT
So, all expensive tweaks could be riding the placebo wave ? |
It is even possible that you yourself are merely a figment of my imagination.
I repeat, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE (though not necesarily within the context of this MEST Universe).
Now possibility is not the same as certainty. I am reasonably certain that NOT ALL tweaks (expense does not come into it the least) operate on Placebo. Some likely do and some likely don't.
I believe you make again the same fundamental logical mistakes so common among the objectivists....
Namely the position "It's expensive and I don't understand how it works, hence it must not work and anyone saying different is a fraudster stealing the pee-pulls money. And the pee-pull must be protected as they are to stupid to take care of themselves."
It should be noted that that position shows severe dishonesty, both intellectually and ethically. First, expense and efficiacy are unrelated subjects.
Someone who sells expensively something that is very cheap to make (regardless if efficient or not) is a businessman operating within the confines and according to the rules of the socalled free market. If you feel that operating thusly is morally wrong, why not start with the really big businesses who operate like that?
Now the efficiacy of a given "tweak" may be debated, evaluated, ABX tested, denied, accepted, prooven or even disprooven, however the cost on the market does not come into it.
Neither case as such has even a moral dimension (at least not within a society where he who sells expensively to others what is cheap to him is considered a shrewed business man) one has an economincal one and the other a scientific one.
If you insert a moral dimension that does not exist you in turn insert emotionality. If you argue emotionally you argue from a point that is indefensible.
So, in area 1) the tweak may or may not give a customer an item of a value comensurate with what he has paid or not. If too many customers feel they got poor value for their money the product will become unpopular and the company will go out of business.
In are 2) the tweak may or may not a difference which is reliably audible to a few, some, many or all or it may make no difference at all.
However if you mix one with the other you are arguing from a mistaken and precarious emotional viewpoint aquired due to the application of the ridiculous concept of moral conventions onto spheres in which they do not operate (Morals operate neither in comerce nor in science).
Sayonara |
|
|
| TNT |
I acknowladge and agree on EVERY statement in that post KYW.
/ |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
You are mistaken, as QM indeterminism doesn't change a thing in that regard.
You misunderstood my argument, which is understandable as I squeezed it into a line. The thing is that quantum uncertainty merely brings randomness into the equation, and that does not increase the information processing (including mental) capability of any physical system. Penrose explains that well in Shadows of the Mind (though he then goes to present other arguments against computational mind, though they have been formally refuted as per the article whose title I posted above). Any random sequence possible can be reproduced by a computer (the issue that a truly random sequence is uncompressible and must be encoded in the program/data is irrelevant to the argument here, as the goal is not to predict exactly which of these sequences will occur; that is impossible anyway). The point is that any possible set of quantum states and their time revolution can be encoded as a computer program, and thus any physical system is computational. I have no choice but to summarize here; check out some of the articles I named for a more detailed view (especially the second and third).
From information theory, there is no difference between the capabilities of deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines. Indeed, we as well as actual computers are even more limited than Turing machines, as we do not have arbitrarily large memory -- we are merely finite automata.
Super-Turing automata can be conceptualized mathematically, but it is due to QM exactly that they cannot be physically implemented -- they need arbitrary precision real numbers, which are not at all 'real' (sorry, I just had to pun this). |
It is not just a matter of randomness, it is a matter (pun intended) of unpredictabiliy and uncertainty. The act of observing itself changes reality, so it is impossible to know the outcome of something: the moment you look at it, it changes as a result of your 'looking'. You cannot know what it was before you 'looked'. By extension, that also means you cannot simulate it, as it involves modeling the physical universe which needs an observation and hence changes it even before you can start.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| cbrodersen |
Exactly--that is the essence of the Uncertainty Principle. The observed and the observer are interconnected in such a way that the former cannot exist without the latter. The observed, for example a photon of light, does not actually exist in QM until it has struck the observational apparatus (or a human retina). QM goes even further and stipulates that the photon does not travel from point A to point B, but is merely created at point A and observed at point B.
From this it should be obvious to any die-hard Newtonian physicist (such as Prune) that the universe is 1) spontaneous and 2) incapable of being computed, other than in a general form using probability equations. This is not just a contentious argument on my part--it has been repeatedly confirmed by experiment. All abstract conjecturing about whether the universe could be rendered in numbers, given a big enough computer, are simply not in accord with reality as understood by present-day physics. |
|
|
| Prune |
Diehard Newtonian?! Quit talking out of your @$$. Not to mention that your comment's whole first paragraph is an interpretation of QM, and just one of many; it is not something that follows from the equations; moreover you are playing with semantics of the word 'exists' here, which looses meaning in such a context.
There is nothing Newtonian about what I said, but I can easily see that as you apparently did not actually read what I wrote. Did I say anything against uncertainty? Simply that it is irrelevant to the argument, as had been pointed out by Penrose (who is the Rouse Ball professor of mathematics at Oxford, and on the level of, say, Stephen Hawking, if we are going to play this game!). Let me quote myself:| quote: | | the goal is not to predict |
Which part of that don't you understand? This argument doesn't rest on the ability of someone trying to actually measure some system and then simulate it. I never claimed that we can take a physical system and simulate it and get the exact same results as occur in real life. Not that you need to -- as the laws of physics are computational, any part of the universe is its own computer (interaction with the outside of the part is an issue that can be dealt with because the past light cones of the set of states you are looking at bound the system). Not to mention that a result of black hole thermodynamics is that there is a maximum density of information that can be stored in any region of space.
I have posted references to back up what I have written, yet all I've gotten in response is name calling and laymen's descriptions of QM uncertainty. |
|
|
| janneman |
Sigh...
Another promising discussion down the drain..
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
Down the drain? I thought I answered rather well in my previous post.
I cannot belive you missed what I was trying to say twice already, arguing against something that was not said at all. |
|
|
| janneman |
This is what you said:
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
[snip]..
therefore any computer with a sufficient memory capacity can simulate any physical system to whatever degree of precision is necessary, [snip] |
..and that is what we are taking issue with.
But, you know I get sick of people who start to badmouth and throw negative adjectives around at the first sign of non-agreement. I have had enough of that the last few days.
I wish you good day.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
Are you serious? I was not the first to badmouth.I took great offense to that, and had no choice but to retort in kind.
As for what you are taking issue with, that demonstrates that you are reading what I'm saying the wrong way, which may be partially my fault in expressing myself, so let me try to restate it.
Consider the quantum state of a physical system. You cannot measure it due to uncertainty. However, the information content of such a system is finite, because a) we are considering a finite region of space and time, and b) there is a maximum possible information density in any region of space (this is an established result in physics, and discussed in one of the references I mentioned). That means that a computer can hold this information -- in theory; that you can't measure it and program it in practice is irrelevant. An initial state does not allow the computer to predict the final state, due to QM randomness. However, now consider that in theory any given random sequence can be produced by a computer -- you simply encode it in the program. That you can't predict it beforehand is irrelevant. The point is that given any physical system over a period of time, it is possible to map it to a discrete finite encoding, i.e. something that can be produced by a finite automaton.
Penrose messed up when he couldn't accept the limitations implied by minds implemented in computational physics, and he proposed that some yet undiscovered non-computational physics are instead the basis of our thought. This was completely destroyed by the critics. The theoretical limitations (think Goedel and Turing) of computational systems bound human thought, like it or not. |
|
|
| SY |
I'd take issue with that, too. But it's waaaaaay off topic. If you guys want to chat about QM, non-linear dynamics, and determinacy, start a thread about it.
SY's Rule: Consider a one-dimensional particle in a box of width "a", i.e., the potential energy is infinite at all x<0 and all x>a. Within the box, the potential energy is linear, i.e., it's 0 at x=0, some value Eo at x=a, and varies linearly at intermediate values. What is the form of the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian? If you cannot answer this, I cannot take your opinions on QM or modern physics very seriously. |
|
|
| Prune |
Looks like I reedited my post at the same time you posted...
Just for the record, I'm not a physicist (so I cannot answer your question), but then I'm not stating my opinions either, but the, er, combined opinion of the pieces I named above. In any case, the argument I presented doesn't rely on QM uncertainty, because it doesn't change anything. It relies on information theory and formal automata (the computational powers of deterministic and non-deterministic FSA (or TM) are equivalent; see Chomsky hierarchy), which should be very apparent
Anyway, I did not mean to threadjack. janneman, if you have something to say about this, pm me.
BTW I don't see why you mentioned nonlinear dynamics. What's that got to do with this? |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
[snip]Consider the quantum state of a physical system. You cannot measure it due to uncertainty. However, the information content of such a system is finite, because a) we are considering a finite region of space and time, and b) there is a maximum possible information density in any region of space (this is an established result in physics, and discussed in one of the references I mentioned). That means that a computer can hold this information -- in theory; [snip] |
OK, I think I follow that.
| quote: | Originally posted by Prune
[snip]The point is that given any physical system over a period of time, it is possible to map it to a discrete finite [snip] |
But to map it you must establish a relationship from 'where you come from' to 'where you go to'. And you can only establish such a relationship if you look at 'where you come from'. That then changes it, so your mapping is incorrect: you cannot map it! Mapping, predicting, simulating: they all need to know the initial condition to go from there. And that is impossible.
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
You cannot map it because you cannot precisely determine the state of the system. So my bad for saying it's possible to map. I should have said that there exists a mapping.
Of course even if you could know the initial (or final) conditions with whatever precision you require, it is insufficient to fully specify the system over time. Only a classical system has that attribute. Looking at it in block time, if QM is real then you also need to specify all intervening states. The theory/equations can be thought of as giving the correlations between those states, but you can have many different possible configurations of intervening states with the same initial/final state(s). The problem is that some people think the equations have somehow a reality of their own, as is implied by some interpretations. They are just a mathematical invention, a model that gives you constrains of how the physical states are correlated. This interpretation I find makes more sense, and is elaborated in the article I mentioned above. |
|
|
| Prune |
And before SY exercies his moderating powers, back on topic:
Thread starter:| quote: | | There is a post on AA that says The Great Randi has offered $1,000,000 to certain reviewers of Shakti Stones who can demonstrate an audible effect of the stones. |
Can you post a pointer? More important, has this been confirmed elsewhere? Otherwise, this thread is useless.
BTW are any of the participants here interested in actually running such blind tests, or was this whole discussion generated simply because of the prize money involved? |
|
|
| Arthur-itis |
[QUOTE]
Hi,
quote:
How do you measure that?
Frequency response.
Abslolutely not in all cases.
Frequency response doesn't tell the whole story, not by a long shot.
Not saying it does but anything that is audible will likely have an effect on FR. At any rate it's where you would start.
quote:
In speaker xovers caps are caps as long as they have the same vlaue.
Oh no, no way....Sorry.
Try the following test on a multi-way passive x-over:
Assuming you have ordinary non-polar caps in the x-over in series with the signal in the x-over, replace the one(s) in the tweeter section with good quality polypropylenes and notice how the speaker all of a sudden sounds unbalanced. (Bright)
I have, I found no such effect nor did any of the people I had listen in order to try and verify such effects.
I wanted desparately for there to be differences so that I could justify their expense.
quote:
But so much of what is claimed to be a tweak and therefore a bright idea, doesn't pass the smell test. Green pens, coins on speakers, Shakti Stones, etc.
Mostly, I spoke for what I think up myself or can at least try at home after reading about it somewhere.
Something that does make sense and is easily tried at home without the need to buy anything out of the ordinary is the green feltpen, for instance.
Not if you think about it. 0's and 1's don't care what color they are.
Tiptoe style cones can be great to experiment with as well and don't cost an arm and a leg either.
But a waste of time since it's addressing a problem (at least in CD players) that doesn't exist, unlessof course you've put your CD player on top of your subwoofer.
There must be at least a few dozen of things that are easily tried
and don't demand a financial effort, just some elbow grease.
Ever tried solid core instead of multistrand wire?
No reason to, besides it would hurt my hands.
Magnet wire instead of PVC insulated wire?
If there's no difference between zip cord and any other wire, why would I wish to?
The list is endless....
I wish I still had my copies of the long defunct Hifi-Answers, it had really interesting sections on just this kind of tweaks.
There are charlatans in every business surely but they usually don't last for long.
How long have Shakti stones been available?
In the meantime it's wise to ask around what others think before sending any green ones their way.
Maybe, but the fact that so much of this stuff seems to go unchallenged is disturbing. The rags like Stereophile and TAS that enorse so much of this nonsense, (green pens, magic wire, mnagic rocks, etc.) never seem to use any effort to determine teh truth, indeed they seem to have a mission to dumb down their fellow audio enthusiasts.
How do you get the backround color to change? *&^%$!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
| Prune |
Well, these rags are there to sell stuff. Plus, if various equiment really sounded the same, what would they write about? They'd have to make sh!t up.
Oh, wait... :devilr: |
|
|
| fdegrove |
Hi,
| quote: | | At any rate it's where you would start. |
Maybe so...But what do you look for next if you can't measure a difference there?
| quote: | | I have, I found no such effect nor did any of the people I had listen in order to try and verify such effects. |
Hmmm...Maybe you changed a cap where it wouldn't show up but I can assure that it does make for a measurable difference in FR.
| quote: | | 0's and 1's don't care what color they are. |
LOL...Yeah...But then you're not supposed to colour those either.
| quote: | | unlessof course you've put your CD player on top of your subwoofer. |
Well then? What does that tell you?
| quote: | | How long have Shakti stones been available? |
No idea but "long" enough if I hear you...
In this particular case I suppose those "stones" are just a sideline of a company that specializes in a different field.
My point is however that if they (or some other tweek for that matter) didn't do anything at all, why bother to keep on offering it to the public?
| quote: | | never seem to use any effort to determine teh truth, indeed they seem to have a mission to dumb down their fellow audio enthusiasts. |
Both mags are competitors, if one would publish total BS wouldn't you think it would constitute the competitors' wet dream and they'd jump all over them?
| quote: | | How do you get the backround color to change? *&^%$!!!!!!!!!! |
Same way you changed it first time 'round....
When you post you see these little menus on top with scroll down choices, first row on the right you see COLOR. Return it to whatever you want or leave the default (which says COLOR).
Cheers,;) |
|
|
| arniel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kuei Yang Wang
It is even possible that you yourself are merely a figment of my imagination.
I repeat, EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE (though not necesarily within the context of this MEST Universe).
|
To think I'd almost given up reading this thread, when...
:devilr:
That's it! It's now abundantly clear that Thorsten thinks that he is god, or at the very least has a messiah complex (come to save us from the chains of common sense) :angel:
After all, he "knows" but does not "believe" (surely an indication of an omnipotent being), tells us that anything is possible and has invented a whole new dictionary based around English words that look the same, but have whatever meaning suits his argument at the time.
Not to mention the fantasy persona...
Sayonara indeed! |
|
|
| john curl |
Actually, I find Thorsten's posts refreshing, if not a bit over the top. ;-)
To me, the main point is to realize that the 'facts' that we learned in school and on the job are just 'approximations' of true reality. Just poor models of how the world works, that will be laughed at hundreds of years from now.
Where does this leave us now? Well, if you trust YOURSELF, and maybe your friends, you can try different things to see if you can or can't 'improve' your hi fi system, with them.
I, personally, have found that many, 'off the wall' tweaks have actually worked consistently for me, and I continue to use them. Try for yourself first, before laughing at it. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
...Try for yourself first, before laughing at it. |
Very sensible advice. Why won't people just keep things as simple and honest as Mr. Curl does? Why do people distort truth or choose to remain ignorant? Why do they choose to have something satisfy their mind before they will allow it to reach their ears? Is it because they exalt their intellect above their other senses? |
|
|
| kelticwizard |
Arthur-itis:
You make worthy contributions to the board, but seem to have this eensy-teensy problem with quotes.
I started this thread some time ago to help people with this:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/show...?threadid=11225
Please give it a look.
All you really have to do is substitute text where the dots are in the following arrangement:
| PHP: |
[quote]..........[/quote]
|
That's it. Anything between "quote" in brackets and "/quote" in brackets appears in a "quote box". That's the box with the different background color. Just add some identifying info, such as "Quote Joe Schmoe:" beforehand, and you are all set.
Quote Joe Schmoe:
Get the idea? :) |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by john curl
To me, the main point is to realize that the 'facts' that we learned in school and on the job are just 'approximations' of true reality. Just poor models of how the world works, that will be laughed at hundreds of years from now.
|
Lovely perspective, John. I can't resist adding: those in the future will know how poor our models are but, because they will know their own models to be equally poor (how, after all, do you "advance" toward infinity), will perhaps see our inability to see how poor our models are as but our historical form of limit---no different, as a limit, to their historical limit, and thus the same. No need to laugh, therefore. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| quote: | Originally posted by Wellfed
...Why won't people just keep things as simple and honest as Mr. Curl does? Why do people distort truth or choose to remain ignorant? Why do they choose to have something satisfy their mind before they will allow it to reach their ears? Is it because they exalt their intellect above their other senses? |
These are not rhetorical questions. Perhaps this site is loaded with answers to similar questions, but this one thread alone is massive reading. Any insight is appreciated, especially regarding my last question. I realize that intellect is not a "sense" per se. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
| Thanks for posting this link Cloth Ears. It looks like it will help me get a handle on some of the opinions people hold that have me puzzled. |
|
|
| andy_c |
Some models are better than others and some are worse. Consider Maxwell's equations. They're still being used with great success in things like EM simulators to accurately predict the performance of circuits out to 100 GHz and beyond. Not too shabby for a guy who figured this stuff out in the mid 1800s. With a little help from some friends of course - people like Gauss.
Will purveyors of audio quackery survive the test of time like Maxwell and Gauss did? |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
Actually Serengeti, at some point in the future, when Quantum computers finally become reality, we will be able to create astonishingly accurate models of almost anything.
There is going to be a point sometime in the next two hundred years, and probably much sooner, when scientists have determined by their experiments and observations of the universe a general theory that can be applied to all physics problems and explains everything, absolutely everything, with great precision.
We will then have plenty more to learn because knowing the basic physical laws is not the same thing as being able to comprehend the complexity of how things interact by means of the physical theories.
However, we will gradually add yet more and more complex machinery, including fully artificial intelligence, to our already vast array of investigative tools.
We will eventually know exactly how human hearing works, down to the molecular and even quantuum levels. We will understand exactly how the brain takes the signals from the ears, how the ears themselves preprocess the data, in the most astonishing detail. It will take fantastic machines to even model this, but they will probably exist.
Since we would know how the ears work at such a fine degree of granularity, it WOULD be possible at some point to assess the accuracy our hearing to know whether a X component has an effect on the sound. We would also have the ability to model the effect of x component so precisely that there would be a high degree of confidence in the results of these predictions, which would be considered reasonable "proof" by scientists.
It could be scary, because there will be a lot less room for blind faith. But it will also be like turning the lights on in a dark room, there will be all sorts of wonderful new things that we will be able to see and explore. |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | | Just poor models of how the world works, that will be laughed at hundreds of years from now. |
I do not agree. In the hard sciences, even so called revolutions have started to become mere refinements, and nowhere is this more obvious than in the most fundamental of sciences, physics, where the old models remain useful as special case approximations to the newer theories. This suggests an asymptotic approach of our understanding to whatever model most accurately reflects reality (whether such a state is reachable or only approachable is another question). The oft made arguments that today's science will look to our descendents like the witch doctor's of our primitive ancestors are naive extrapolations. For example, very few theoretical physicists have any doubt that any future physical theory of the world will be quantum in nature. |
|
|
| Wellfed |
Are you guys even remotely interested in Football? OK, so I'm starting to look like a troll here, I hope you will bear with me.
Actually your discussion fascinates me, but I simply don't have much of a clue as to what you're talking about. It's me, not you. You knew that, didn't you? |
|
|
| geewhizbang |
I also agree that new science isn't going to invalidate much of what we are already doing. It is just going to add to it.
Most of what Einstein's theories did not invalidate Newton or Maxwell, but merely added to them, and went on to explain things that they failed to cover, or even provided a more solid basis for the earlier theories.
The theory of everything, when it comes, is going to have elements that explain Einstein's theory, quantuum mechanics, and whatever else we have observed.
It is ever so interesting that new theorists are resurrecting some of Einstein's ideas, such as his cosmological constant which he rejected because he couldn't find a reason for using it, even though it helped solve a lot of his equations.
Now astronomical observations and the growing beleif that there is some sort of odd invisible "dark matter" in the universe, is finding ways to use this "mistake" and now there is a reason for using it.
Even now, people with a good grasp on current science can say with a high degree of confidence that there is no physical science that explains how the Shakti stones work, thus it is extremely improbable that they can have the claimed effects. Randi can be very confident that his money will be there for him when he retires. |
|
|
| serengetiplains |
| quote: | Originally posted by geewhizbang
Actually Serengeti, at some point in the future, when Quantum computers finally become reality, we will be able to create astonishingly accurate models of almost anything. |
Yes, those future models will add X data points to our present models, moving us X steps closer to a goal defined as infinity.
| quote: | | There is going to be a point sometime in the next two hundred years, and probably much sooner, when scientists have determined by their experiments and observations of the universe a general theory that can be applied to all physics problems and explains everything, absolutely everything, with great precision. |
With merely "great" precision? "Great" implies an approximation.
| quote: | | We will then have plenty more to learn because knowing the basic physical laws is not the same thing as being able to comprehend the complexity of how things interact by means of the physical theories. |
I agree. Always much more to learn. Now or in the future. In the future or in the future's future.
| quote: | | We will eventually know exactly how human hearing works, down to the molecular and even quantuum levels. We will understand exactly how the brain takes the signals from the ears, how the ears themselves preprocess the data, in the most astonishing detail. |
But down to the quark? Down to the _______ (insert name of future "particle"). Do you see where I'm going?
| quote: | | Since we would know how the ears work at such a fine degree of granularity, it WOULD be possible at some point to assess the accuracy our hearing to know whether a X component has an effect on the sound. We would also have the ability to model the effect of x component so precisely that there would be a high degree of confidence in the results of these predictions, which would be considered reasonable "proof" by scientists. |
Speed the day!
| quote: | | It could be scary, because there will be a lot less room for blind faith. But it will also be like turning the lights on in a dark room, there will be all sorts of wonderful new things that we will be able to see and explore. |
I would like to be there. Sigh. Wait, I already am.
:) |
|
|
| janneman |
| quote: | Originally posted by SY
[snip]SY's Rule: Consider a one-dimensional particle in a box of width "a", i.e., the potential energy is infinite at all x<0 and all x>a. Within the box, the potential energy is linear, i.e., it's 0 at x=0, some value Eo at x=a, and varies linearly at intermediate values. What is the form of the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian? If you cannot answer this, I cannot take your opinions on QM or modern physics very seriously. |
This is waaay above my pay-scale, I'm outta here!
Jan Didden |
|
|
| Prune |
| quote: | Originally posted by serengetiplains
moving us X steps closer to a goal defined as infinity. |
That's your definition, and a baseless one at that. Such a definition is not warranted, and doesn't even pass Ockham's razor.
| quote: | | Always much more to learn. |
There are limits to possible knowledge, and not just practical, but theoretical ones. This has been much discussed by physicists, logicians, and philosophers. You seem to have missed it all.
| quote: | | But down to the quark? Down to the _______ (insert name of future "particle"). Do you see where I'm going? |
Nowhere fast. Space and time are not infinitely differentiable. If you don't stop at the quark, you stop at superstrings or quantum loops, but you still stop. It | | | |
