OK, enough. I really will sit back and read for a bit. It's quite an amusing thread. Really. You can learn a lot about people by reading these threads. As you can me if you're really reading my lines.
What was that about opening our minds and taking in information (INFORMATION, not just data...) without prejudice (as scientists are supposed to do)?
What was that about opening our minds and taking in information (INFORMATION, not just data...) without prejudice (as scientists are supposed to do)?
Getting serious now...
No, there is no direct connection. The Schroedinger equation, postulated in QM, is fundamentally non relativistic. It correctly describes the wave character of non relativistic particles like electrons.
Meantime, the Maxwell equations are describing the wave character of photons, which fundamentally cannot be non-relativistic.
To put them together was a huge effort, started by Dirac and ending up with what we call today the quantum electrodynamics (QED). How do QM and Maxwell equations play nicely together in QED? As usual, I would say, but fasten your belt, an amateur as myself can’t put it more simple: the time evolved quantum observables averaged over h-dependent coherent states converge, when h->0, to the corresponding classical quantities, known from the classical electrodynamics. h is of course the Planck constant.
I'm genuinely curious here. I know nothing of quantum mechanics, maxwell equations or quantum electrodynamics, but how can a constant (h) go to zero unless it IS zero, in which case it isn't "going"? Maybe I don't understand h->0?
Fall out!
What about shy-t falling in, like spiders or aircraft engine part..... imagine a flying bull letting go😱
Has anyone seen the data of measurements that verifies those equations? Or is it just based on listening?
So yeah, this would require rewriting what we know about physics. You certainly can add noise, but selectively removing noise is going to need some extraordinary proof.
Since we're at an impasse, can we really drop this?
Ok, then we can safely assume that before you settled on your best amplifier, you first listened to fire hydrants, some rocks, a footrest, a washer-dryer combo, a toilet, ancient greek pottery, and more? Since no technical or objective data was to be taken into the decision of what sounds best or even was to be listened to?
It's a matter of degree. You probably have no interest in auditioning my Ottoman or mailbox, I feel about the same toward something like a Bybee that
he or oters claims (with zero evidence) does something magic but can't show what or how.
Is that supposed to be a serious question?
I recall my first-year Chemistry course in University. On the Christmas exam the first question read "Derive the Schrodinger Equation from first principles."
I am still waiting for the Max Headroom equations demonstrating the mathematical underpinnings of his goop. Once we have seen the math we will know how to test his hypothesis, until then it's all just airy-fairy.
Same with your directional conductors. Knock yourself out, but please don't expect serious people to have any interest in your claims until you provide either some math explaining the effect or some measurements.
I have posted measurements many years ago, you are just looking in the wrong place. This is a place for the drunk[emoji43]
Absolutely, it sounds better (than something, I know not what) to you and that is all that matters... to you. But why would anyone else care?
Whoa! Just, whoa! I'm increasingly amused by posters to this thread. I'd be happy to pay for entertainment like this and it just comes to may inbox free of charge. What a piece of work! Maybe a Nobel isn't in your future but a Hugo might be.
So no, I didn't listen to any fire hydrants. (gotta say I'm happy you used that image though
). But I have listened to a LOT of amplifiers, sources, speakers, etc. etc. Curious that you seem to think listening to fire hydrants is a good avenue since, ahem, I never suggested it was. Read again, I'm not interested in "objective" data when I want to LISTEN to music.
The famous question: do I experience the color RED the same as you? Does RED look te same to you as it does to me?
No f*cking way to tell.
Jan
Carlp, you love listening to music through your amp. That's good. A single ended tube amp has characteristics that are both audible and measurable. You prefer these characteristics and of course nobody can blame you. It's your choice.
Snake oil devices have NOTHING that can be audible or measurable. It's a completely different thing: their effects rely on suggestion, not on audible (subjective) or measurable (objective) facts.
Snake oil devices have NOTHING that can be audible or measurable. It's a completely different thing: their effects rely on suggestion, not on audible (subjective) or measurable (objective) facts.
Last edited:
I have stated that I do not know for certain the mechanisms involved.
I have also posted observations of the subjective effects of BQP and my filters and stated these observations may be hints to what is going on.
The AB experiments originating the observations described are performed in real time without signal interruption, and this of real advantage when discerning fine differences.
It is not until you have personally heard these real time AB differences that you will be able to grasp the nature of these changes.
Dan.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.