Unfortunately, that's the way with many of these changes - "miracle" is probably too strong a term to be used, but if one is strongly focused on getting the best quality from the replay then that's what it can seem like.
Most playback, most of the time, is fairly degraded in subtle ways, which gives the sound those qualities which instantly identifies it as not being "real". Playing with materials in seeming meaningless and pointless ways can then sufficiently counter the mechanism that's causing the problem, an extra layer of distortion to intrude, producing that "miraculous" effect in the listening ...
I'm not talking about communication. I'm talking about spooky action at a distance.
I don't want to argue about it, scott, as I said, some still are, but I do know that a lot of things are settling down in particle physics, with the putative discovery of the Higgs boson lending credibility to the Standard Model. I thought that this was old news, I mean it was on the BBC...
This is quite interesting:- http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm The suggestion is that quantum entanglement is responsible for birds' ability to detect the Earth's magnetic feild.
Last edited:
Yeah.... I gotta call ******** on that one to be honest.
I always thought that the way certian birds detects the earths magnetic field is by chemical changes in their brain, all it would take is a simple buildup of chemicals which are bonded to iron ferrite molecules to create a chemical state change in the birds brain as a result of iron ferrite being physically attracted to one or two or all four sides of the birds brain. and then all it would take then is logic and memory (including inherited memory) to determine the path of travel of a bird. That part of the brain would then give the rest of the counciousness of the brain a feeling of being lost when it is going the wrong way or a feeling of "going the right way" when its on track.
Like a GPS system tells us through voice commands, I personally have an emotional response when Mr T tells me I'm a fool if I don't turn right up ahead.
On the older GPS systems you had to set waypoints, why can't a bird do this too? Remembering waypoints from either inherited memory or recalled memory would be a far better and more realistic explanation and a more reasonable assumption than saying that birds use the forces of Quantum Mechanics to navigate.
If a 14 year old GPS can do it then why can't a birds brain? There is an enormous difference in computing power between the two, it would be birds-play for the bird brain.
Simple as that.
Ockham's Razor, etc.
Last edited:
Long life to the new Bybee's baby and happy new year to all of us
Happy New year and I hope you are all moved into your new home and keeping warm and comfy.
Sincerely,
Richard Marsh
I don't want to argue about it either, just disappointed at the pop press sensationalistic interpretation of "action". There is still no experimental evidence outside of that predicted by theory. The probability of observing one or the other state is equal and the observer can not affect the result, yes it's equally non-intuitive either way but the distinction is important. There is a paper by IIRC Phillipe Eberhard propositing that causality can never be violated, yes the argument goes on.
http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/action/pia-entanglement.cfm
I'm constantly under the influence of mental telepathy from my twin soul that I believe is spooky action at a distance.
I'm constantly under the influence of mental telepathy from my twin soul that I believe is spooky action at a distance.
Yeah? Well they showed the experiment on TV and Jim Al-Khalili, Professor of physics and researcher in quantum mechanics at Sussex University, made it quite clear that the experiment was run to demonstrate the 'spooky action at a distance' that Einstein insisted was impossible. Now if he was BSing, there'd have been an uproar about the BBC presenting dubious theory as fact. Their reputation for accurate science reporting is jealously guarded.
So, on the same basis that I believe the moon landings took place, because nobody was in a better position or had greater reason to debunk them than the Soviets, I feel the provenance of the information exceeds the provenance of yours. There aren't so many programs about QM that the audience wouldn't be loaded with experts.
OK, I was mistaken about the name of the experimenter, he was an Irishman called John Bell.
You can see a summary of the programme's contents here, press 'see more'.
BBC Four - The Secrets of Quantum Physics, Einstein's Nightmare
Unfortunately the episode is not currently available via streaming.
You can see a summary of the programme's contents here, press 'see more'.
BBC Four - The Secrets of Quantum Physics, Einstein's Nightmare
Unfortunately the episode is not currently available via streaming.
The question of whether there was or was no moon landing always wbeings back a joke that makes me smile.
Houston center gets a message from the US moon module:
"Hey, you guys, we just landed on the moon. The awful truth is we can see through our port windown a Russian spacecraft alread here."
Houston says:"So what are they doing?"
Moon module answers; "HOly cow, their astronouts just came out wtih two big buckets od paint and some brsuhes, They are painting the moon red."
Housoton answers: "That's OK, your orders are to stand down, repaet stand down, in English that means leave 'em be, do nothing!"
Moon module: "Nothing? The are half way through, half of the visible side of the moon is already painted red, or Christ's sake!"
Houston: "that's just fine, moon module, obesrve closely but fo nothing."
Module, half an hour later: "Jeusus, they did it! All of the moon is red now. What do we do"
Houston: "Now you get your white paint and brushes out and write Coca Cola."
Houston center gets a message from the US moon module:
"Hey, you guys, we just landed on the moon. The awful truth is we can see through our port windown a Russian spacecraft alread here."
Houston says:"So what are they doing?"
Moon module answers; "HOly cow, their astronouts just came out wtih two big buckets od paint and some brsuhes, They are painting the moon red."
Housoton answers: "That's OK, your orders are to stand down, repaet stand down, in English that means leave 'em be, do nothing!"
Moon module: "Nothing? The are half way through, half of the visible side of the moon is already painted red, or Christ's sake!"
Houston: "that's just fine, moon module, obesrve closely but fo nothing."
Module, half an hour later: "Jeusus, they did it! All of the moon is red now. What do we do"
Houston: "Now you get your white paint and brushes out and write Coca Cola."
Einstein died before Bell did his work, so never got to see the fun. It's only "action" in the quantum measurement sense- there's no force or transmission of information.
It is fascinating how some people believe very little outside the textbook, and others take a greater leap, sometimes getting it wrong, and wasting a good deal of time because of it.
It is the same in audio of course.
About 35 years ago, there was a fundamental 'split' in direction in audio design:
There were the people like Richard Heyser, Matti Otala and other researchers who took a 'leap of faith' that audio, as measured in the conventional way, did NOT give all the information necessary to make good sounding electronics.
On the other hand, there was a group of academics and pragmatists forming, who thought that hi end audio was a waste of time and money, and who strove to 'prove' it by devising double blind tests that were virtually immune from separating any subtle differences in audio products.
To this day, the debate rages, but the two sides are not interacting much anymore. The ABX tests showed no differences, when more open tests, like 'which do you prefer, A or B?' would show differences, so, what to believe?
As we know, some here have gone completely over to ABX testing with 'religious zeal', and others keep asking questions as to how to make better audio electronics. I stick with the 'hearing differences' group, because it matches the reality that I work in, even though I often see ads that appear to be complete BS, made up by some marketing team, somewhere. Heck, truth in advertising is kind of rare, and has been that way forever. So, one has to sort out the authentic from the fake, and this is not always easy, without trying, and that is expensive in time and money to do properly.
It is the same in audio of course.
About 35 years ago, there was a fundamental 'split' in direction in audio design:
There were the people like Richard Heyser, Matti Otala and other researchers who took a 'leap of faith' that audio, as measured in the conventional way, did NOT give all the information necessary to make good sounding electronics.
On the other hand, there was a group of academics and pragmatists forming, who thought that hi end audio was a waste of time and money, and who strove to 'prove' it by devising double blind tests that were virtually immune from separating any subtle differences in audio products.
To this day, the debate rages, but the two sides are not interacting much anymore. The ABX tests showed no differences, when more open tests, like 'which do you prefer, A or B?' would show differences, so, what to believe?
As we know, some here have gone completely over to ABX testing with 'religious zeal', and others keep asking questions as to how to make better audio electronics. I stick with the 'hearing differences' group, because it matches the reality that I work in, even though I often see ads that appear to be complete BS, made up by some marketing team, somewhere. Heck, truth in advertising is kind of rare, and has been that way forever. So, one has to sort out the authentic from the fake, and this is not always easy, without trying, and that is expensive in time and money to do properly.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.