I know enough philosophy to know that QM isn't the whole show - Joshua does too as he's pointed out one of its limitations. I freely admit zero knowledge in the area of, for example, Quantum Field Theory. I just don't see how its relevant when commenting on the practice of physics nowadays.
Don't see how your analogy is relevant here to what I've been saying - if there are indeed real experts on the state of physics today lurking in the background, I'd like to hear from them. They'll need to address the points Smolin makes in his book with cogent rebuttals. I'm quite capable of holding my own against reasonable arguments. I'm only going to expound if there's any curiosity, otherwise I'll keep my enormous learning for another opportunity.
Last time I've checked, Schroedinger is dead, Heisenberg also doesn't feel very well and Stephen Hawking is still busy in Oxford.
Would you settle for a couple of PhD's?
One doesn't need philosophy for that, since no-one has ever made that claim. And the whole QM thing is irrelevant to designing a hifi preamp. But some people confuse religion and scamming with actual science, so that was the point I've addressed.
You're on record as claiming Joshua misunderstood basic physics for saying something similar to that - that QM is rather odd and obviously incomplete.
I've claimed that its not, since QM helps point the way towards resolving the subjective/objective dichotomy in audio. John appears to me to be leaning in that direction too with the book list he's given us.
Where? Did I miss it?
Why would having a PhD in physics be relevant to understanding the state of physics nowadays? The state of physics as a discipline is a social matter, not covered by physics itself. Of course experience of having worked within the discipline of physics is relevant but a PhD is totally unnecessary for that.
..............I hope that you check your more important information with greater care; Stephen Hawking is a Cambridge man....NOT Oxford.
Yes, as you've pointed out, that's a social phenomenon. I too noted that the comments made were not in any sense scientific comments.
What the bleep?
Oh, I bought the DVD of it but couldn't bear it. Seemed to cloud the issues much more than clarify. Poor film - well I only watched the first, maybe, 15mins. Marlee Matlin was way way better in 'Children of a Lesser God'.
Oh, I bought the DVD of it but couldn't bear it. Seemed to cloud the issues much more than clarify. Poor film - well I only watched the first, maybe, 15mins. Marlee Matlin was way way better in 'Children of a Lesser God'.
You are now in trouble.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/soli...rch-preamplifier-part-ii-257.html#post1977217
Come on guys, why so much bandwidth wasted on garbage like that film?
How about going back to preamps, psu, distortion, etc.
General question for John, syn08, and all of you who are actively designing circuits using transistors: why did you go the transistor way, and stayed away from tubes?
Because I already have central heating, don't need to impress a GF, I hate signal transformers, and can't afford swapping them every twelve months.
I like complementary designs that tubes don't allow. I used tubes, exclusively, for the first 5 years of my getting into hi fi, and a Dyna Pas3 or a Mac C22 for the next 5 years, until Mark and I developed the JC-2 preamp. I hated early solid state, still do.
All else being equal, tubes are better. but solid state is a real intellectual challenge, and more practical too.
All else being equal, tubes are better. but solid state is a real intellectual challenge, and more practical too.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.