Rule of thumb: if there is a breakthrough discovery that changes the way we think about the universe, it won't come from someone doing hifi in his garage.
You're not even 2% correct in that statement. Planck's Constant is a fundamental physical constant, every bit as much so as the speed of light or the charge of an electron. Is the speed of light "duct tape"? I've been saying it to you for years, but I can't help it, I need to say it again- try to actually LEARN some physics before you expound on physics.
I'll take your comment as proffered with good spirit, Sy. I professed my ignorance at the start of the post. I've done a bit of searching on the nest and other places, specifically searching for the exact circumstances of the situation surrounding the creation Planck's constant, but have not found them.
Wikipedia for example, has none of this information-that I've found. These sort of things are important. Like knowing when and what direction Newton came from when he took over the Royal Society, and exactly whom he was 'in bed' with. Such points become VERY illuminating, so to speak, when understanding how we got to where we are today and how things can get messed up, over time, due to the things that seemed a bit small, or where even purposely hidden at those times.
Newton, it turns out, was at the very heart of the now ubiquitous Fiat currency and world currency systems, all stemming from the one point, his involvement as the comptroller of the newly created Bank of England. And, his involvement in the utter destruction of the fully functional 'scientific method', in order to extract revenge on the previous bearers of the torch of the 'Royal Society', His twisting of it in order to place his mathematics first, over the idea of phenomena observed and then theory fitted and tested past that.
He ordered it so that speculative mathematics creates the drive for truth in physics and cutting edge science, which is a patently ludicrous ordering of human reality. Thus, we have huge hordes now, of observed phenomena, that are ignored/ridiculed/eliminated... as they don't fit the math. This is an obviously retarded way of doing things.
However, this thing he did, in the revising of the Scientific method, cast in stone the now existing paradigm of 'science' as the system is now chock full of this group and thinking, and this moving back to a more centrist and viable methodology and view, is quadruply difficult. Break the hammers out!!
It comes down the the intrepid human beings best friend, which is a refusal to take things at face value. I'd say on all sides of this argument, you'll find that point. How it's utilized in the individual's life and viewpoint becomes part of the issue.
I've stated it before and will state it again. I'm always happy (grin and bear it kinda thing) to be wrong - as I get a chance to learn something new.
"Rule of thumb: if there is a breakthrough discovery that changes the way we think about the universe, it won't come from someone doing hifi in his garage."
Einstein's comment on that was that problems created in the given realm of science will invariably come from outside science..as at the heart they are an unsolved problem that has remained for some time, and therefore require looking and thinking outside of the 'known areas'. I don't expect that hi-fi guys will discover the 'secrets of the universe either, but I won't think that someone outside of the world of physics can't do so. After all, Schumacher wasn't the king of Formula racing until he got inside the car and inside the racing system. You did say rule of thumb, which does not mean absolute. Simply not likely. But not impossible either. Faraday, for example, was quite uneducated. But very intelligent, obviously.
Wikipedia for example, has none of this information-that I've found. These sort of things are important. Like knowing when and what direction Newton came from when he took over the Royal Society, and exactly whom he was 'in bed' with. Such points become VERY illuminating, so to speak, when understanding how we got to where we are today and how things can get messed up, over time, due to the things that seemed a bit small, or where even purposely hidden at those times.
Newton, it turns out, was at the very heart of the now ubiquitous Fiat currency and world currency systems, all stemming from the one point, his involvement as the comptroller of the newly created Bank of England. And, his involvement in the utter destruction of the fully functional 'scientific method', in order to extract revenge on the previous bearers of the torch of the 'Royal Society', His twisting of it in order to place his mathematics first, over the idea of phenomena observed and then theory fitted and tested past that.
He ordered it so that speculative mathematics creates the drive for truth in physics and cutting edge science, which is a patently ludicrous ordering of human reality. Thus, we have huge hordes now, of observed phenomena, that are ignored/ridiculed/eliminated... as they don't fit the math. This is an obviously retarded way of doing things.
However, this thing he did, in the revising of the Scientific method, cast in stone the now existing paradigm of 'science' as the system is now chock full of this group and thinking, and this moving back to a more centrist and viable methodology and view, is quadruply difficult. Break the hammers out!!
It comes down the the intrepid human beings best friend, which is a refusal to take things at face value. I'd say on all sides of this argument, you'll find that point. How it's utilized in the individual's life and viewpoint becomes part of the issue.
I've stated it before and will state it again. I'm always happy (grin and bear it kinda thing) to be wrong - as I get a chance to learn something new.
"Rule of thumb: if there is a breakthrough discovery that changes the way we think about the universe, it won't come from someone doing hifi in his garage."
Einstein's comment on that was that problems created in the given realm of science will invariably come from outside science..as at the heart they are an unsolved problem that has remained for some time, and therefore require looking and thinking outside of the 'known areas'. I don't expect that hi-fi guys will discover the 'secrets of the universe either, but I won't think that someone outside of the world of physics can't do so. After all, Schumacher wasn't the king of Formula racing until he got inside the car and inside the racing system. You did say rule of thumb, which does not mean absolute. Simply not likely. But not impossible either. Faraday, for example, was quite uneducated. But very intelligent, obviously.
Uninformed people like to claim that skepticism is a downside of science, but in fact the skepticism is what makes science so strong.
A wise scientist always puts new discoveries in the context of what he always knows. For example, Einstein's Relativity had to agree with Newton for the case of slow speeds. When you take the limit of the Lorentz' Transformation as v -> 0 you end up with the Gallilean Transformation. When you take the limit as Planck's Constant goes to zero in Quantum Mechanics you wind up with Hamilton-Jacobi Theory. And as a less rigorous example, in plate techtonics the plates are effectively stationary.
KBK claimed a few pages back to have eliminated the "rainbow" in DLP. I did a simple sniff test, if it stinks like BS, it most likely is. Anybody who knows where the rainbow comes from could guess the odds of a quack job in their basement eliminating it.
A wise scientist always puts new discoveries in the context of what he always knows. For example, Einstein's Relativity had to agree with Newton for the case of slow speeds. When you take the limit of the Lorentz' Transformation as v -> 0 you end up with the Gallilean Transformation. When you take the limit as Planck's Constant goes to zero in Quantum Mechanics you wind up with Hamilton-Jacobi Theory. And as a less rigorous example, in plate techtonics the plates are effectively stationary.
KBK claimed a few pages back to have eliminated the "rainbow" in DLP. I did a simple sniff test, if it stinks like BS, it most likely is. Anybody who knows where the rainbow comes from could guess the odds of a quack job in their basement eliminating it.
fizzard said:
I agree with you, Skepticism is good, vital, in my view.. The psychological origins of the given skepticism is the real point that must be considered. "Physician, Heal Thyself", and all that.
Black and white are also things that tend to be 'not so good',with respects to the given individual and group psychology. Leads to severe and dangerous fanaticism. Part and parcel of the problematic point of some folk's baseline psychology.
Like calling my point in saying I've LARGELY eliminated rainbows..as stating here that I say I've ELIMINATED rainbows..self creating that response of mine..and then calling me full of fecal matter. You aren't doing yourself any favors. As for rainbows, go ahead and try working on them. It is not that simple of a problem.
Like anything, it can either unravel into a deep complexity or become more simple and obvious when you dig into it. Depends, as usual.For example, with your metals wear problem., If you yourself begin working directly with cryo considerations with your situations in the specific, you may make some vital discoveries and find application. Or none at all. Who knows. Or even create answers that others can use eleswhere in other applications.
A competent designer will always tweak a design after burn in (or break in, as is the case with speaker design). So it only seems logical that the design will perform as intended after burn in. I see nothing controversial about that. There are people out there who don't do any listening to, or measuring of, a design after some burn-in period, but they are at risk of having a product that will probably go from bad to worse.
John
John, I regret the fact that despite your intellectual level (not intelligence, which to me is something completely different) you misunderstood my remark. The compendium would have been COMPLETE if the QUESTIONS related to the given ANSWERS were NOT left out. That's all I'm saying. Apart from that it is a reference covering many audiophile design issues. Hope I made myself clear this time
Franklin
KBK, I would like to offer a few quotes that I just found:
Max Planck:" But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning. " (Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')
"... Indeed, classical physics can essentially be defined as the limit of quantum mechanics as the Planck constant tends to zero.' Wikipedia
Max Planck:" But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning. " (Max Planck, 1919 Nobel Prize address, 'The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory')
"... Indeed, classical physics can essentially be defined as the limit of quantum mechanics as the Planck constant tends to zero.' Wikipedia
fizzard said:
It's origins as duct tape are the real question. Not that the duct tape covers the hole, no. The tape fits, yes. Understanding what the Duct tape actually is, that is the question.
About Planck's Constant: ...."but the formula only made sense if he assumed....".
Yes. Duct Tape. No doubt about it.
KBK said:
Cryo was discussed because somebody in the cryo business tried to sell it to us, I wasn't involved directly in the process though, but I eat lunch with the people who were. The thing was that what the sales-people were claiming, and what they were willing to have in an SLA differed significantly.
The list of treatment steps on the final solution involved like 30 steps. There's lots of progressive cooling, and constant temperature soaks, but none of it at anything remotely cryogenic.
fizzard said:
I really don't at all have a problem with assumptions, as they are part of the hypothetical situations of modeling that allow us to feel our way forward. We'd be screwed without them. However, Plank's Constant remains an assumption and is not a fact. There is literally no such thing as a fact, and many folks have difficult time getting their heads around that one point. It's all a grandiose assumption and duct tape fit. At least the bear dances. If Max where here, he'd likely be verbal to a powerful degree in the directions and stance that I'm taking, right now.
Planck's Constant, for example, it seemingly falls flat on it's face when asked to address wave considerations, or the duality - which is also firm. So it remains what it is:
Planck's Constant = Duct Tape for Physics.
When we find the real reason, then we'll remove Max's perfectly reasonable tape and put the real values and/or variables/issues in it's place.
The problem begins when we take the Constant at full face value in everything. It's not a freaking religion. That's a incredibly foolish assumption, as in the end, everything is quantum.
"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
---Max Planck
On another occasion he said:
"Science advances....funeral by funeral"
Another point: The title 'particle physics' itself, is indicative of the mindset, and the issue that is avoided. Baseline psychology has become the issue, more than anything else.
Get thee to a wave/particle duality nunnery.
I know it might be a matter of semantics and simply a way of writing but such things can be indicative of issues. My very point is embodied in your first sentence.
You called it 'a correct equation'. It is not. It is a measured assumption turned into a number or value, which fits not in all applications. Only in the specific idea of time being a syncopated particle consideration.
And that assumption has been shown to fall apart in volumes of instances. The double slit experiment (as done by Hitachi, for example) shows the particle only applicational aspect of the Constant. That's about as fundamentally 'half right' as one cares to get.
Fizz, can we keep things above the belt?
John, E = hv. That's a fundamental equation of the universe, just as much as x = ct. It might be useful to go on with the rest of the sentence you quoted:
"...and this question led me, along Boltzmann's line of thought, to the consideration of the relation between entropy and probability; until after some weeks of the most intense work of my life clearness began to dawn upon me, and an unexpected view revealed itself in the distance." Maybe Planck actually figured it out and that's why he got a Nobel, eh?
John, E = hv. That's a fundamental equation of the universe, just as much as x = ct. It might be useful to go on with the rest of the sentence you quoted:
"...and this question led me, along Boltzmann's line of thought, to the consideration of the relation between entropy and probability; until after some weeks of the most intense work of my life clearness began to dawn upon me, and an unexpected view revealed itself in the distance." Maybe Planck actually figured it out and that's why he got a Nobel, eh?
Also, I was directly asked by Ti to come and visit them at their labs. Twice.
Why do I not parade that about? Why have I not mentioned that anywhere -ever before? Well, Who the hell am I to mess with what is essentially insider information of what goes on in the gutty-whuts of Ti?
Call me full of fecal matter again, please.
And Sy..the guys in their garages. At least they have equipment, but equipment is not necessary. The vast majority of discoveries come out of labs that are not more fully equipped than that.
In the case of physics, most of it comes out of the mind of a guy sitting in a chair: The Monkey Pauses for Reflection.
Sometimes it's good to consider that.
Why do I not parade that about? Why have I not mentioned that anywhere -ever before? Well, Who the hell am I to mess with what is essentially insider information of what goes on in the gutty-whuts of Ti?
Call me full of fecal matter again, please.
And Sy..the guys in their garages. At least they have equipment, but equipment is not necessary. The vast majority of discoveries come out of labs that are not more fully equipped than that.
In the case of physics, most of it comes out of the mind of a guy sitting in a chair: The Monkey Pauses for Reflection.
Sometimes it's good to consider that.
To put it in to greater perspective, as to the semblance of a dividing line here, as to audio, tweaks, science, physics, reality, etc....a Quote from Manley P. Hall:
"There Comes a time in the growth of every living individual thing when it realizes with dawning consciousness that it is a prisoner.
While apparently free to move and have it's being, the struggling life cognizes through ever greater vehicles - it's own limitations.
It is at that point that man cries out with greater insistence to be liberated from the binding ties which, though invisible to mortal eyes, still chain him with bonds far more terrible than those of any physical prison."
Fizzard, and Sy, be careful. Ego wins no arguments. It can be written off as misunderstandings, with in the idea of not perfect communication on forums, due to being written word only. But I'm starting to think otherwise.
And that's the dividing line that's beginning to emerge here. Basic self awareness. It's an argument that cannot be won. Which is why the reasonable will not step up and debate it, and why the halls of academia, science, and physics are silenced of the input of their more correctly centrist participants.
"There Comes a time in the growth of every living individual thing when it realizes with dawning consciousness that it is a prisoner.
While apparently free to move and have it's being, the struggling life cognizes through ever greater vehicles - it's own limitations.
It is at that point that man cries out with greater insistence to be liberated from the binding ties which, though invisible to mortal eyes, still chain him with bonds far more terrible than those of any physical prison."
Fizzard, and Sy, be careful. Ego wins no arguments. It can be written off as misunderstandings, with in the idea of not perfect communication on forums, due to being written word only. But I'm starting to think otherwise.
And that's the dividing line that's beginning to emerge here. Basic self awareness. It's an argument that cannot be won. Which is why the reasonable will not step up and debate it, and why the halls of academia, science, and physics are silenced of the input of their more correctly centrist participants.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.