| Columns Retired Columns & Blogs |
| Loudspeakers Amplification Digital Sources | |
Analog Sources Accessories Featured | |
Music Columns Retired Columns | |
Show Reports | |
Features Latest News Community | |
Resources Subscriptions |
© 2024 StereophileAVTech Media Americas Inc., USA
All rights reserved
This is a post by me from another thread. I post it here as it is entirely relevant to this thread:
You miss the point entirely. It's purely mental a 'positional' issue. ie, where the thought arises from. How it came to be.
However, it seems as if your base understandings of the precepts of reality are sorely lacking. It is very likely that this, if true, will always limit you.
Note, not once have I ever on this board anywhere, at any time..strayed into the idea of 'religion' as it is related in western popular thinking.
Some philosophical underpinnings might do you a world of good. After all, it is the basis of all you like to call science. I have been attempting to appeal to your intelligence, not it's emetic origins, shaping, and colorization via the depth of the psyche. One must strive to understand that logic is a hindbrain regurgitant.
Ultimately, Religion and science both arise from the same mental core of the given individual. On that level, for the vast majority of people -when they reach for their internal limits of their capacities- the two are not really capable of being distinguished from one another.
Another way of seeing it, is that the person who is most firm in their sanity is the one to be most feared, as they are patently --insane. For no person is beyond being an island of their own internal creation.
The danger lies in the projection of that onto others for the purposes of self comfort in the core of the given being's 'human' aspects. The intensity of the projection becomes the advertisement (to others who might take note of it) of the animal's ultimate reign of the core --within.
Realizing that is key to taking the first step toward actual clarity.
It seems you are simply arguing that solipism is an actual fact of the natural world.
I disagree with that belief. I think there is a natural world that is ruled by the laws of physics and exists independently of human thought.
OTOH I believe the solipism *is* a completely accpetable philosophy for audiophiles when talking about perceptions sound quality. This seems to be the point of confusion for so many when trying to understand my beliefs. IMO Human perceptions of audio playback quality are solipistic. The explanations often given for those perceptions are in a completely different class of assertion, are objectively testable and therefore fall into the natural world ruled by the laws of physics.
You tell me that your system sounds better to you with a Belt tweek or a clock of some sort in the room I have no argument with that perception. If you tell me that there is a physical mechanism causing that perception that falls outside our understanding of physics without tesing to rule out mechanisms that are well documented to have the same effect then you have what we would call an extraordinary claim. To gain any acceptance for such an assertion one needs to show empirical evidence which not only supports that assertion but rules out the possibility of other explanations that don't demand any revisions of scientific facts or supported theories. Such assertions fall into the catagory of highly unlikely until proven otherwise. Again we are talking about the assertions of the *mechanisms* that cause the perception, not the perception itself which IMO remains a solipistic truth regardless of what underlying mechanism causes it.
>>> "Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses." <<<
OK, Scott. Let us look at you view of scientific researchers. You give a lovely 'neat' view, all so simple - so unlike REAL 'everyday', hands on research with pitfall after pitfall, setback after setback !!
The simple definition from wiki is obviously correct. It IS the idealised version of what science should be and, obviously, should be the goal aimed for. NO ONE, to my knowledge on this forum, is arguing against that goal !! BUT it is a stylised definition. Years and years and years and yet more years are missing from that definition, are missing from each stage referred to.
I think that KBK (and anyone else involved in research) has a better understanding of the efforts and time involved in researching ANYTHING than your simplistic view of science as expressed in the wiki quote !!
To Quote KBK :
>>> "The rigors of science can take you there..but it must be done with an open mind." <<<
I also like the quote below, it puts it in a nutshell !!
>>> "It pays to remember the rhythm by which science has always advanced: first comes the admission of the existence of inexplicable phenomena; only then can theories be advanced to explain them.
---Richard Lehnert" <<<
In your world, there IS no admission of inexplicable phenomena. What other people are hearing, where you cannot understand HOW they can be actually hearing what they describe, you explain away by 'bias'. That is YOUR theory of inexplicable phenomena. 'Bias' explains everything you don't understand, so there is no reason for you to think further !!!
In Ethan's world, there IS no inexplicable phenomena. What other people are hearing, where he cannot understand HOW they can be hearing what they describe, he explains away by 'it must be imagination' in the case of John Atkinson (and others) hearing such as Harmonic Discs (and other tiny devices in the room) 'improve the sound'. Or when other people (a huge number of people and for more than three decades) are hearing different cables sound different he explains away by 'it is all in the mind'.
Geoff is right with what he says, especially in his (4) and (5) paragraphs.
If one does like J_J has done and quote facetiously 'something from physics' such as "If I drop a stone it will fall on my foot" as an example of laws of physics which cannot be violated, then one does not have to THINK, because there cannot, ever, be inexplicable phenomena when all is already known from the laws of physics. Especially regarding sound and what we 'hear' !!
So, Scott back to my REALITY picture of science and research versus your wiki, stylised, idealised description of science and research.
So, the scientific researchers who propose the latest hypothesis that there are some sort of 'relay stations' positioned along the auditory nerve and that these 'relay stations' can continue communicating with each other long after any external 'sound' has ceased are ABLE to design experimental studies to test these hypotheses - are ABLE to get "measurable evidence" are they ?? If they aren't, then what do they do ? Sit down and cry ?? Sit down twiddling their thumbs ?? Or, do they continue to work with a HYPOTHESIS (or my word, concept) ??
What do YOU do ? Do YOU sit on your hands and wait until they can 'show' you 'measurable evidence' before you would be prepared to take any notice of their hypothesis ? Or would you challenge their hypothesis by asking them if they have considered taking 'bias' into consideration ?
Reality concerning research is different from the neat, simplistic description you have given Scott. Science is not neat and controlled. Nature has a way of being awkward and stubborn and wants to do it's own thing - not always what the scientist wants it to do !! If the scientist wants to tease out what Nature is doing, then the scientist has to be patient. But, for the dedicated scientists, they CAN work by continuing thinking, discussing, probing, challenging, questioning, asking, experimenting. They can question such as the Tinnitus sufferers, get THEIR subjective input !!!!! I repeat the words SUBJECTIVE input !!! ALL relevant work, long before any 'meaningful results', any 'meaningful measurements' !!!
I don't need the "wiki explanation of the scientific method", I just have to read the accounts of their struggles !!!! The scientists themselves KNOW the "wiki explanation of the scientific method", but what working scientists also know is that it is not that EASY, not that simple, does not follow that simplistic progressive path you have outlined, however much that might be the ideal !!!
My paragraph describes real life research far better than wiki !!!
>>> "In the early stages of most research, scientists don't separate out 'concepts' with no (published) scientific support. If all scientists waited for such evidence, nothing much would be investigated. Many scientists follow their (informed) instincts or follow SUGGESTIONS from other scientists. Scientists work with many concepts, like using stepping stones, until they reach a conclusion, even if that conclusion ends up at a brick wall and they can go no further. Or, they work as far as they can go then 'put the concept on a shelf' to be taken down, dusted off and looked at again if some new reports, some new findings warrant such renewed investigation !!!!!" <<<
I repeat. Science is not neat and controlled. Nature has a way of being awkward and stubborn and wants to do it's own thing - not what the scientist wants it to do !! If the scientist wants to tease out what Nature is doing, then the scientist has to be patient. But, for the dedicated scientists, they can work by continuing thinking, discussing, probing, challenging, questioning, asking, experimenting.
Light did not want to stay being 'particles'. Light wanted to also be waves. Remember the struggle, Scott ? Remember the controversy, Scott ? How many years, Scott ? Yes, Young tried to design experimental proof of the wave/particle duality with his double slit experiment. Yes, that experiment showed light behaving as waves as well as behaving as particles BUT, Scott, how many years ago was that ?????? It is STILL controversial. Because part of it is STILL not resolved. Because the later experiments carried out with ONE light particle, or ONE electron aimed at the two slits still shows a resulting wave formation being formed - from only ONE particle or only ONE electron. Do you know what the scientists have to do in the face of that, Scott ? They have to sit down again and THINK, experiment, think again, experiment, discuss, experiment, think, wait to see if anyone else comes up with something new - THIS is science, Scott !!! Not the simplistic, idealised wiki version !! The scientists involved in the double slit experiments are having to ponder an outrageous thought such as "Does the single light particle or single electron have an equal but unseen, unknown 'sibling' ?" Thoughts, Scott., Ideas., Scott, Concepts., Scott, leading to discussions, to other thoughts, to other ideas, to other concepts !! And so science goes on.
Nature has a way of being awkward. Your wiki quotation is far too simplistic and idealised, however much you wish to rely on it as evidence as to why you don't want to investigate other people's (listening) experiences until they have eliminated (to YOUR satisfaction) bias, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing etc.
Have YOU tried investigating the effect on sound from applying a demagnetiser to LPs and CDs ? Others have !!
Have YOU tried investigating the effect on sound from applying a colour to CDs ? Others have !!
Have YOU tried investigating the effect on sound by applying a chemical to the label side of CDs, to the labels of LPs, to the outer insulation of cables (including AC power cables) ? Others have !!
And, they have been prepared to do it without first being presented with research papers or publication in peer group journals, or proof !!!
The answers are NOT on wiki. If they were, there would be NO controversy. Wiki does not explain inexplicable phenomena. Explanations for phenomena have to be 'teased out', slowly and patiently, as history shows, experiment after experiment, debate after debate !!.
Many of you want to suggest that if you cannot understand HOW some people are hearing "better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on" and if they are, then their experience MUST BE because of 'bias, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing etc'.
Whereas I would suggest that there are enough (numerous in fact) intelligent people who are seriously involved in audio, all over the world, who are hearing ""better air, sparkle, transparency, openness, imaging, soundstaging and most importantly, naturalness and musicality, greater height, greater width, greater depth, better separation, and so on", that their experiences cannot be so easily dismissed as due to 'bias, autosuggestion, the placebo effect, imagination, effective marketing etc'.
Just because their experiences cannot yet be explained to everyone's satisfaction, those experiences should not be so readily and simplistically dismissed !!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
Jeez May you said the wiki definition is both unlike reality and correct in back to back sentences. you can't have it both ways.
No it *is* an accurate description of the scientific method.
It's not a goal it is a method. It would seem that Geoff and yourself are both avoiding it like the plague and prefer to make highly unlikely assertions as fact and stop right there.
No. It is not stylized. It is very accurate.
Nonsense. Nothing from the Wiki description of the scientific method sets short time limits on the processes. You are just making things up here.
An opinion you get to have.
Where in the Wiki description does it say that one must not have an open mind? May. an open mind in this case really means being open to the possibility that one's hypothesis won't hold up to testing even if it takes years to test. Of course one has to formulate and execute meaningful tests before even having to bring an open mind ot the table. Something both Geoff and yourself have failed to do.
That's nice. Where does the wiki description conflict with that?
May please stop making things up about my beliefs. It is an intelectually dishonest debate technique known as a straw man argument.
Where have I done that? May, again stop making things up about my beliefs or my assertions.
No May that is your straw man. Burn it somewhere else please.
May frankly you are simply full of shit here. Nowhere have I said any such thing. If you can't represent my beliefs honestly and accurately please refrain from representing them at all. Maybe you should try quoting me in context. Of course that would undermind all your bullshit about my beliefs because you won't find the material you need.
based on your gross misrepresntations of my beliefs I can't take your representations of John's or Ethan's beliefs seriously.
actually no he is as far off as you. It is sad that all either of you have is such gross misrepresentations of other peoples' views in defense of both of your utter lack of regard for real science. You both choose to make assertions that would rewright the science books while never testing to exlude reasonable conventional explanations for your observations. It is inexusable and your defense for it is to make things up about the people who point this gross deficiency out to you. that is nothing short of pathetic.
JJ, a guy who is actually do real scientific research, was just trying to make what ought to be an obvious point. By the way, JJ is actually finding explanantions for peoples' percpetions by engaging in the scientific method instead of just making shit up and not doing anything to test it.
May, given your gross misrperesntations of other peoples' views and actions, I see no reason to take your version of "reality" seriously when it is so clear there is such a huge divide between reality and your world.
What is preventing them from putting their hypothesis to the test?
I suggest you do a little research on Albert Einstein and see how the scientific community and Einstein himself delt with such issues. i don't think you are going to like the answer though.
Again I suggest you actually review what you have now been told about the methodologies of science. But i assure you that if bias has not been accounted for in any of their tests of their hypothesis then their research should not pass peer review. after all one of the main goals in science is to eliminate such things as much as possible.
The so called neat simplistic version actually makes no exclusion for the real world rigors of science. soemthing you seem to know nothing about. why should you given your forty years of avoidence?
well that is why constructing tests to challenge the many hypothesis scientists come up with requires great skill, imagination, dicipline and substantial funding. But that is and has been going on despite your protests. Just because you lack the skills, imagination, dicipline and will to actually put your assertions about the laws of physics to the test does not mean the rest of the world is like you.
Apparently not only do you need it but you need someone to explain it to you given your faulure to see the gross differences between the actual scientific method and your gross misrepesentations of it. I gave you the Wiki description so you could look at it and compare and contrast it to your ridiculous assertions. Apparently those gross differences were lost on you and now you proclaim no need to be told of those gross differences.
Indeed they do know it isn't easy. but they do it anyway becuase it is the right way to do it. You wouldn't know about that though would you? You have never bothered to take the next step with your unlikely revisions of science have you?
Bullshit.
Not on my watch. Bullshit said twice just stinks twice as bad.
You gotta be kidding May. This is some of the stuff I was suggesting you look up. Are you seriously comparing your B.S. and complete lack of research to the years of research done in the field of quantum physics? You are just making an even bigger ass of yourself. But yeah May I remeber it well.
Wrong question May. With quantum mechanics we had a body of repeatable evidence that had no conventional explanation with Newtonian physics to rule out. Do you understand this HUGE ****ing difference between what was observed with quatum mechanics and what is "observed" with your tweaks and Geoff's clock? Let me repeat them to you showly. With quantum mechanics we had a body of *repeatable* evidence under *bias controls* that had no alternative explanation already established to be ruled out by testing.
BULLSHIT!!!!! There is nothing contraversial about wave/particle duality! WOW
It is resolved May. Get a clue!
the only thing i have done was blind tests on the new clarity forula from Classics which apparently is designed to have the same effect by eliminating all material fromt he formula that can be magnetized. Under blind conditions I could not distinguish between the clarity vinyl formula and the sample they provided with the old formula that contained carbon.
They have "investigated it? What have they done other than making non controlled comparisons?
I have done side by side comparisons under blind conditions and failed to distinguish between colored and non colored CDs.
with bias controls in place?
i did my comparisons with no such papers in hand either May.
May, the wiki thing was given to you for you to see the differenes betwen your version of science and the real thing. That is all. apparently that was lost on you.
There you go again with assettions of the 'inexplicable" as if you have ever done the work to find any valid explinations for your wild assertions about the laws of physics. You have no business declaring anying inexplicable given your efforts at avoiding any meaningful search for explanations.
May, they simply have to be tested. In the case of your tweeks and Geoff's they simply have to first be tested for well known common causes of such phenomena. After forty years you still refuse to take that simple simple first step and yet here you are waving your hands and screaming that these things are "inexplicable." Pure bullshit.
More bullshit misrepresntations of other peoples' views. On the contrary. I make no such assertions. You OTOH along with Geoff go way beyond the perception and invent mechansims of cause and never put those assertions to any meaningful test. and you do so without even testing to rule out explanations that require no rewrites of science.
your suggestion has already been shown to be nonsense by data gathered under controlled conditions. data that is repeatable and varifiable.
May,I have never dismissed the experiences. how can you not understand this when I have explained it some many times? It is the unsupported, unlikely mechanisms that you and Geoff assert that are being called untested and unlikely for very good reasons.
"May frankly you are simply full of shit here. Nowhere have I said any such thing. If you can't represent my beliefs honestly and accurately please refrain from representing them at all. Maybe you should try quoting me in context. Of course that would undermind all your bullshit about my beliefs because you won't find the material you need."
"May, they simply have to be tested. In the case of your tweeks and Geoff's they simply have to first be tested for well known common causes of such phenomena. After forty years you still refuse to take that simple simple first step and yet here you are waving your hands and screaming that these things are "inexplicable." Pure bullshit."
"More bullshit misrepresntations of other peoples' views. On the contrary. I make no such assertions. You OTOH along with Geoff go way beyond the perception and invent mechansims of cause and never put those assertions to any meaningful test. and you do so without even testing to rule out explanations that require no rewrites of science."
Go ahead, Scott, let it all out. I realize this is frustrating for you. It's not like you're the first person to get all worked up over this. I mean that sincerely.
That's about par for you Geoff when it comes to substance in your posts. I suppose it's a company policy or something? Zero substance. Could be your company slogan. Think about it. Use it if you like. That one is on the house. No charge.
Scott, I feel compelled to help out here.
Geoff has frequently dropped hints about the gadfly nature of his products - you have to look beyond his moment to moment posting....and then you will find a hilarious sociologic subtext that is actually meant to undermine the audio camp he pretends to belong to.
Think of him as the Borat of Hi Fi. Machina Dynamica is a form of antagonistic performance art, really.
Not to spoil Geoff's fun, I will edit out this post later tonight so as not to spoil his cover.
Shouldn't it be funny? I get the Andy Kaufman/pro wrestling angle but where's the funny? I have to admit the act is very convincing.
Just checked out the machina dynamica website. OK, found the funny. I've been punked. Geoff wins.
Buddha wrote:
Isn't is pretty to think so? Please post some links to examples of the hints he has dropped. I've floated that performance art hypothesis about Machina Dynamica more than a few times on various forums. But the thing is, if he's charging money for useless tweaks that he claims work, while knowing they are useless, it's not just performance art: it's called 'fraud'.
And if it is, does Clark Johnson realize how lavishly he's been played?
Does Chateau La Tour 'outperform' plonk?
Is tithing worth the money?
If I pay for entertainment, who are you to say I'm being defrauded if I am a happy consumer of said entertainment?
It's only fraud if you are promised something and the promise is not delivered upon.
Is a tweak 'useless' if someone is happy with it?
This is entertainment, not science. I think that's where people are getting tripped up.
It doesn't have to work. Heck, it seems Geoff intentionally tries to find ways of marketing things that don't work, and the farther out he gets, the more seriosuly some take it! The perfect grift! Geoff is a genius at the classic gambit of making the mark feel 'special.'
It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work! This way, it does whatever you want it to. If it actually did anything, then his event horizon would collapse!
People seem to like mentioning the emporer's new clothes in this context...but the tweaks aren't the emporer, we are! We are a hobby full of emporers who need what Geoff is selling. At some point, don't we deserve what we are getting?
We're in the realm of "Prove it works," "Well, prove it doesn't," here.
Pretty funny, actually.
I used to want to 'protect' my fellow audiophile, but given all the magical thinking and ammunition hoarding they seem to do, I now think, "Screw it, better Geoff gets their cash than Smith and Wesson."
I never knew the extent of audiophile depravity until I got online. Now, I kind of think, "Go ahead and take these unhappy middle aged men's money before they do something damaging with it."
If they can't figure out Machina Dynamica, then that gives you quite an insight into whatever else they may have on their minds.
"Isn't is pretty to think so? Please post some links to examples of the hints he has dropped. I've floated that performance art hypothesis about Machina Dynamica more than a few times on various forums. But the thing is, if he's charging money for useless tweaks that he claims work, while knowing they are useless, it's not just performance art: it's called 'fraud'.
And if it is, does Clark Johnson realize how lavishly he's been played?"
Oh, John Curl, too, I see.
Don't forget Ken Kessler. Did I play him like a second-hand fiddle or what?
"The Intelligent Chip, Mumbo and, Indeed, Jumbo," by Ken Kessler
http://www.stereophile.com/images/newsletter/605stph.html
He does offer one component that *ought* to work though. the Promethean base. It's a basic spring suspension.
but that aside I am quite convinced. Wish I had gone to his website before arguing with him. He got me good. I enjoy a good practical joke even if it is at my expense. Well done. And of course the irony is that it doesn't matter that I am talking about it in this forum. The joke will continue to work.
Pat each other on the back, guys. You're all too smart for geoff to fool.
Apparently not. I think I got most the egg off my face.
Once they move into the house it's tough to get them to leave, eh Zorak?
>>> "BULLSHIT!!!!! There is nothing contraversial about wave/particle duality! WOW" <<<
My quote. >>> "Because part of it is STILL not resolved." <<<
Your quote :- >>> "It is resolved May. Get a clue!" <<<
Resolved !!! When did THAT happen Scott ??? The part I said was not yet resolved was how ONE photon or ONE electron, aimed at the two slits, could still give a resulting wave pattern !! I specifically said that part of it is still not resolved !!!
It will be extremely interesting if you can show me how that part has been resolved !! Which concept did win out in the end ?? The anticoincidence/tunnelling concept ?? The position/momentum (i.e complementarity) concept ?? Or yet another concept ??
To quote from the scientists:-
>>> "Physicists exploit either the wave or the particle model of light as the situation demands. But this is simply learning to live with the dilemma, not resolving it." <<<
You state that it has now been resolved !!
The last I heard was (again quoted by the scientists):-
>>> "But three centuries after Newton, we have to admit that we still cannot answer the question "what is light?" As yet there is still no answer to the basic question: is light "really" a wave, a combination of wave and particle, or something entirely different which cannot be comprehended except as an abstract mathematical description ? As Einstein remarked in 1951, four years before his death, in a letter to M. Besso: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no answer to the question 'what are light quanta?" <<<
I love Einstein's words "conscious brooding" !!!!!!!!!! How apt !!
Your quote :-
>> "I suggest you do a little research on Albert Einstein and see how the scientific community and Einstein himself delt with such issues. i don't think you are going to like the answer though." <<<
What was it you were saying about how Einstein dealt with issues ??????? It appears, from HIS own words, with respect to 'light quanta', that he spent 50 years 'conscious brooding'.
I think I will take your advice and join one of the 'greats' doing 'conscious brooding'.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
And just think, you did it without even trying any of geoff's products. That's the amazing part of it all.
You "just knew" when you'd been punked.
Poor ol'JC, he's still making omelets.
Now, if only Buddha would apply the same reasoning to the Belt products, he could take a rest.
Some day we'll all have a good laugh over this one!
There's no place like outer space, eh?
Maybe they're all Episcopalians?
What exactly do you think is "unresolved" about wave/particle duality? Here is a brief history on the subject.
"In the 1600s, Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton proposed competing theories for light's behavior. Huygens proposed a wave theory of light while Newton's was a "corpuscular" (particle) theory of light. Huygens' theory had some issues in matching observation. Newton's prestige helped lend support to his theory, so for over a century his theory was dominant.
In the early nineteenth century, complications arose for the corpuscular theory of light. Diffraction had been observed, for one thing, which it had trouble adequately explaining. Thomas Young's double slit experiment resulted in obvious wave behavior and seemed to firmly support the wave theory of light over Newton's particle theory.
A wave generally has to propagate through a medium of some kind. The medium proposed by Huygens had been luminiferous aether (or in more common modern terminology, ether). When James Clerk Maxwell quantified a set of equations (called Maxwell's laws or Maxwell's equations) to explain electromagnetic radiation (including visible light) as the propagation of waves, he assumed just such an ether as the medium of propagation, and his predictions were consistent with experimental results.
The problem with the wave theory was that no such ether had ever been found. Not only that, but astronomical observations in stellar aberration by James Bradley in 1720 had indicated that ether would have to be stationary relative to a moving Earth. Throughout the 1800s, attempts were made to detect the ether or its movement directly, culminating in the famous Michelson-Morley experiment. They all failed to actually detect the ether, resulting in a huge debate as the twentieth century began. Was light a wave or a particle?
In 1905, Albert Einstein published his paper to explain the photoelectric effect, which proposed that light traveled as discrete bundles of energy. The energy contained within a photon was related to the frequency of the light. This theory came to be known as the photon theory of light (although the word photon wasn't coined until years later).
With photons, the ether was no longer essential as a means of propagation, although it still left the odd paradox of why wave behavior was observed. Even more peculiar were the quantum variations of the double slit experiment and the Compton effect which seemed to confirm the particle interpretation.
As experiments were performed and evidence accumulated, the implications quickly became clear and alarming:
Light functions as both a particle and a wave, depending on how the experiment is conducted and when observations are made.
Wave Particle Duality in Matter
The question of whether such duality also showed up in matter was tackled by the bold de Broglie hypothesis, which extended Einstein's work to relate the observed wavelength of matter to its momentum. Experiments confirmed the hypothesis in 1927, resulting in a 1929 Nobel Prize for de Broglie.
Just like light, it seemed that matter exhibited both wave and particle properties under the right circumstances. Obviously, massive objects exhibit very small wavelengths, so small in fact that it's rather pointless to think of them in a wave fashion. But for small objects, the wavelength can be observable and significant, as attested to by the double slit experiment with electrons.
Significance of Wave Particle Duality
The major significance of the wave particle duality is that all behavior of light and matter can be explained through the use of a differential equation which represents a wave function, generally in the form of the Schrodinger equation. This ability to describe reality in the form of waves is at the heart of quantum mechanics.
The most common interpretation is that the wave function represents the probability of finding a given particle at a given point. These probability equations can diffract, interfere, and exhibit other wave-like properties, resulting in a final probabilistic wave function that exhibits these properties as well. Particles end up distributed according to the probability laws, and therefore exhibit the wave properties. In other words, the probability of a particle being in any location is a wave, but the actual physical appearance of that particle isn't."
so has there been some new evidence since 1927 that would cause us to reject wave/particle duality? has there been a newwer, better theory to come along that is both radically different and a better fit to the body of empirical evidence? Are there some hodl outs that still believe quanta are either just waves or just particles? What exactly is unresolved?
Really? It's apt? I think if you really understood what it was that he was brooding about you wouldn't find it so supported by it. You see May, Einstein didn't like the implications of his own theories when it came to quanta. But he was not willing to discard the evidence simply because he didn't like the results. Philosophically he never accpeted the implications of wave/particle duality. but as a scientist he never rejected the evidence.
Indeed. He wouldn't let his dislike for the implications of his own theories persuade him to ignore the evidence and abandon the scientific method. so he brooded.
Sounds like a great idea May. Instead of making wild assertions and refusing to test them why don't you test your assertions, live with the results no matter how much you dislike them and then brood.
What? the Belts are also playing a practical joke?
Sadly, they are not.
If Geoff is Andy Kaufman, then the Belts are Scientology. Maybe Moonies.
Zorak just informed me MD is numero uno on Audiogon, has been the last three years. Maybe longer, who the hell's counting. If it's a practical joke, it's a rip-snorting good one, a well-coordinated global conspiracy the likes of which the world has never seen.
Yes, it is.
I'd say more like a psych experiment than full on practical joke, but I won't quibble with you, it is rip snorting good!
When does MD get its Nobel prize?
Maybe after Sheldrake?
Hey Kids!!!
I just found a product that should work just as well, if not Better, than those expensive pebbles:
I have contacted the inventor and she assured me that these rocks are guaranteed to be 77% more brilliant.
Mike
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's a practical joke, it's a rip-snorting good one
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes, it is. I'd say more like a psych experiment than full on practical joke, but I won't quibble with you, it is rip snorting good!
When does MD get its Nobel prize?"
Zorak informs me not to worry, I already got one. Two would be greedy.
Better be careful, cuz N'kisi's gonna tell his friends in Chico to fly over and crap on your windshield!
M
"It would wreck things if any of his stuff did actually work!"
No shit.
"This way, it does whatever you want it to. If it actually did anything, then his event horizon would collapse!"
Mine or yours?
"We're in the realm of "Prove it works," "Well, prove it doesn't," here."
That ship sailed a long time ago. New fangled speaker cables hit 30 years ago. Digital vs analog, silver vs copper, tubes vs solid state, SACD vs Redbook, mpingo discs, demagnetizers. Shall I go on?
Can't say that until Oliver Stone makes the movie.
I still assert that Geoff Kait/Machina Dynamica= Dadaesque situational humor.
I am rather surprised that someone has not caught on yet....that they actually take Kaits claims as real..
and yes, viewed in this light, the fact that he makes money off the stuff is, in my mind..fraudulent. There should be a disclaimer on his website..(for entertainment purposes only)
The Dadaists thrived on two things, manifestos and performance art. I haven't seen a philosphical paper come from geoff and performance art ala Dada was free (or quite cheap since other Dadaists were typically the only ones who watched) in accord with their disdain for wealth and the moral corruption it brings.
However, if geoff suddenly begins quoting Jarry instead of Space Ghost, I will be forced to reasess my opinion.
This is a tough part of the question.
Is the WWE defrauding the fans who think wrestling is real?
Should we be defending the interests of the idiots who actually think the wrestler who's the bad guy is ACTUALLY a bad guy?
At some point, ya just gotta say, fine. If they don't spend their money with Geoff, they'll just piss it away on Hulk Hogan collectable T-shirts or pyramid hats.
_____________
By the way, I was just at the local aquarium shop and man, with all those pebbles, the guy's sound system was making some sweet sounds!
I think maybe his 'ultra-genius' air-bubble-treasure-chest and opening-and-closing-clam feature may have been what put it over the top. Once you start down the aquarium accessory as tweak path, where does it end?
No, we should give all of them hell, Buddha... snake oil is snake oil is snake oil.
I detest wrestling..., but I am quite certain that the fans are aware of it being a big act.
Kait's customers actually believe his stuff is legit.
Aye, there's the rub. If they believe it, shouldn't we be happy for them?
Seriously, if some guy thinks that a chip ripped off of a radiology machine can do what MD claims it does, then isn't that evidence enough that he deserves what he gets?
Is it any different from the guys selling homeopathic pills, Scientology classes, longevity elixirs, etc?
In almost any hobby, you reach the level of background radiation for things like Belt tweaks or Machina Dynamica - I no longer think you can alert people to it.
Plus, they get tacit approval or endorsement from the foums that allow the propgation of such things. I mean, if Stereophile allows it to be promoted on its site, it must work, right?
What would you do about a guy who came here, found his way into Machina Dynamica tweaks based on Geoff's claims, and then came screaming back blaming Stereophile for allowing such promotion to take place on their site?
If the answer is "Caveat Emptor," and that's good enough the PTB here, then maybe we should go with the flow.
Talking about this sort of thing is now part of the larger hobby. Would you make a rule stating that no discussion of this sort of 'sham tweak' is allowed?
>>> "so has there been some new evidence since 1927 that would cause us to reject wave/particle duality?" <<<
You are 'honing in' on my words "not resolved" as though I am rejecting the WHOLE wave/particle duality . This is most unfair of you (to put it mildly) as I am not, and it should be obvious to others, at least, if not to you, that nowhere am I rejecting the whole wave/particle duality.
If the particular section associated with the ONE photon particle or the One electron aimed at the two slits and creating a wave interference pattern has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, then why are the scientists continuing to devise more and more complicated experiments. If, as you say, they actually have the answer, then why the different suggested concepts - surely one concept has emerged as the winner ?
Yes, PROOF is available - visible proof in the form of markings on a screen - of ONE photon particle aimed at ONE slit, showing a resulting particle pattern. And visible proof in the form of ONE photon particle aimed at the two slits showing the wave interference pattern from ONE photon aimed at TWO slits. It is WHY that the scientists are working on trying to find out. If they want to use the information they have discovered, they need definites, not ONE photon particle or ONE electron might behave like a particle or it might behave like a wave !! So, they have to work out how to measure for definites, reliability, repeatability !!
>>> "The major significance of the wave particle duality is that all behavior of light and matter can be explained through the use of a differential equation which represents a wave function, generally in the form of the Schrodinger equation. This ability to describe reality in the form of waves is at the heart of quantum mechanics." <<<
No one is disputing THAT. Certainly NOT me. The actual title of the particular article I have quoted from is
"Is light a wave or a particle - or both ? The central mystery of quantum physics is coming under scrutiny as researchers try to measure the wave properties of a single photon."
You will see the word "mystery". But you Scott says that there IS no "mystery" - nothing to resolve !! Then why are the scientists STILL "trying" (another word meaning all is not yet resolved). They cannot understand fully why if ONE photon particle is aimed at ONE slit then there will be the characteristic 'particle' pattern behind the one slit but if they aim ONE photon particle at two slits there will be the characteristic 'wave interference' pattern behind the two slits - the words used by the scientists were "just as if each single photon has SOMEHOW gone through both holes and interfered with itself before deciding where to go next"
As you say, Scott. That light can behave both as a particle and as a wave was shown well by Young's double slit experiment. But impetus (fairly recently) "came from a number of theorists, including the late John Bell, to contemplate something that has been almost unthinkable - a fundamental revision of physicists' interpretation of what quantum mechanics means" !!!
Why would this central mystery of quantum physics be coming under further scrutiny if, as you say Scott, all is already resolved ?
Anyway, no more of this now, back to audio matters !! I should not have caused a diversion.
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
"I'd say it's more like a psych experiment than full on practical joke."
OK, if you say so. In any case, it does bring out the, uh, pathological in some folks.
"How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Pebbles."
How about: "There's a Machina Dynamica customer born every minute."
"How about: "There's a Machina Dynamica customer born every minute?""
Pretty good. How about: "Machina Dynamica trolls are a dime a dozen?"
No.
Give yourself more credit than that. Your Machina Dynamica trolls are more like eleven cents per dozen!
Hey, I've arrived at an email that, if you pay me to email it to you, will, by virtue of sub sub subquantum string theory dots, improve the sound of your system.
As long as the email remains in your inbox, the improvement will remain.
Works great on systems with digital based front ends.
Heck, once I get the format finalized, you can have it free in return for a testimonial.
RG
How would you do the pie pan / dinner fork thing via email?
why are you still using the old Annex?
you need ANNEXT
My apologies everyone. I caused a diversion.
I had attempted to try to point out, by using one example, that everything is NOT known about everything. That scientists are STILL struggling to understand - EVEN such as light !! What light IS and what light DOES.
Scott says "Don't be stupid May, read up on it. All is known !!"
Best leave the subject there !! I should not have caused a diversion away from audio.
Back to audio matters.
Quote by Scott :-
>>> "Of course one has to formulate and execute meaningful tests before even having to bring an open mind ot the table." <<<
It's the other way round, Scott. If your mind is not open to different avenues, different aspects which might need testing, you won't know WHAT to test !!
Let me give you a real life scenario. In 1981, Peter decided to investigate the emerging claims that different cables (wires) sounded different. He decided to 'listen to' many different metals when used as the conductor. In surprise he found that pure Lead (Pb) was the best sounding metal of all !! He asked himself "Why ? How? What do we know about Lead ?" One thing we did know about Lead is that it is known to repel energy and that is why it is successfully used as a shield.
At that particular time there was a controversy raging in the Wireless World magazine, on the subject of 'was Maxwell right or was Heaviside right regarding the propagation of energy along a wire?'
Over a 100 years ago Oliver Heaviside was what I call a practitioner. He worked in the early communication industry of that day. He both understood electronic theory and the newly emerging radio theory but also, as a practical engineer, he was the one sent out 'into the field' to deal with any problems, any 'losses on the line'. So, he was what I call a practitioner. He also wrote informative articles for what was then the only magazine available, the Philosophical Papers - long before such magazines as Practical Electronics, Practical Wireless and Wireless World. He explained to readers the Maxwell theory that energy travels along a wire but meets resistance and the more energy (higher the frequencies) that is sent down the wire, the more it will end up at the edge of the wire - what is known as the skin effect. In the Philosophical Papers, Heaviside challenged that. He said "I would reverse that. I would say that the energy travels along the outside of a perfect wire and only penetrates the inside of an imperfect wire". And THIS debate had resurrected itself again in the early 1980s and was what was causing the controversy in the Wireless World !!
Peter's time as a Radio Engineer in the RAF came flooding back. He remembered that in RADAR, the energy is not sent down a wire, it is sent down a hollow tube - a waveguide. So, he decided to form the Lead wire into a small tube !! He then found that he did not need to have the whole interconnect constructed in Lead wire to get the best sound, that he could use the standard copper wire interconnect and providing he connected the Lead tube at the end of this standard copper interconnect the sound was just as good !!
Way back in 1981, having to think through the implications of what all this was showing created the base for the rest of the subsequent 28 years work. This DID NOT MEAN that the previous 30 years of him working completely within conventional electronic and acoustic theories had to be thrown aside or rewritten but that there could now be a greater insight IN ADDITION to what was/is conventionally understood !!!
According to your viewpoint, Scott, what Peter SHOULD HAVE done was to spend time (how long ?) devising test after test trying to FULLY eliminate any effect of 'bias', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'effective marketing', or spend time (how long ?) in trying to get a sufficient enough number of people (significant enough to satisfy the most sceptical of engineers) to take part in double blind trials, or submitted what he had found for publication in peer group journals or ................ I repeat the word FULLY because anything less than FULLY eliminating would not be acceptable - as ANY remnant which might remain of 'bias', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'effective marketing' would void any tests already carried out !!!
What Peter ACTUALLY did (what people in real life usually do in engineering !!!) was to send Lead tubes around to 'professionals' in the audio industry, for them to try for themselves !!!!!!!!!!
The rest, as they say, is history.
Engineers, in my experience, do their best in limited time, with limited energy and with limited resources to try to take into account, as much as possible, 'bias', 'autosuggestion', 'the placebo effect', 'effective marketing' effects !!
Within this context :- If one knows how to improve the sound of hearing aids, what does one do ? Does one spend some 5 years or so trying to devise adequate tests to FULLY eliminate 'bias', 'the placebo effect', 'imagination', 'effective marketing' or does one write down the instructions in WEEK ONE and let anyone who might be interested have them ????????????
Incidentally, blind trials WERE carried out in this particular area by one of the UK's leading ENT consultants and his Chief Audiology technician with, in their words "surprising results" but, back in 1985, I never realised that I might NEED such proof of blind trials so never asked for a copy of the written results !!!!!!!!!!
Regards,
May Belt,
P.W.B. Electronics.
I see quotation marks. That means you are supposedly quoting me. Where did I ever say that May? What *did* I say about you making things up about me?
That was rich. A quote taken oompletely out of context so as to change it's meaning. Let's put the context back in shall we.
May "The rigors of science can take you there..but it must be done with an open mind."
Scott "Where in the Wiki description does it say that one must not have an open mind? May. an open mind in this case really means being open to the possibility that one's hypothesis won't hold up to testing even if it takes years to test. Of course one has to formulate and execute meaningful tests before even having to bring an open mind to the table."
So May why did you take my quote out of context and then make it look like I was saying something completely different than what I was saying? I can think of only two causes. Stupidity or intelectual dishonesty. Maybe you can come up with another reason why you would offer such another gross misrepresentation of my words.
May, allow me to quote you out of context. "I" "am" "full" "of" "it" wow May thanks for finally saying it.
May it is quite simple in the case of the Belt tweeks. Test them to see if they still work under blind conditions. If they do you have elliminated the possibility of bias effects.
Thank you for that "real life " scenerio. It illustrates plainly what is wrong with your approach. >>He asked himself "Why ? How? What do we know about Lead ?">> What a dumb first question to ask. He first should have asked if these differences were due to knowing what he was listening to since we have a large body of evidence that shows knowing such things affects our perceptions. So instead of ruling out a well established possible cause he moved on and started pondering the wrong questions based on a bad assumption.
Now if someone likes listening through lead because they think it sounds better that is fine with me. But as soon as you start asserting causes the first thing you have to do is check for things we already know could be the cause. Could that basic methodology be any more ****ing obvious? Once you have eliminated those factors as causes then you can start looking for the unusual. You guys never get there. That is the big problem with your B.S. explanations.
Have you ever heard the sick joke about the "scientist" and the frog? It goes like this. A scientist is doing some research on frog jumping. He puts the frog on the table and says "jump froggy jump." The frog jumps four feet. so the scientist marks down frog with four legs jumps four feet. Then chops off a leg and says "jump froggy Jump." The frog jumps three feet. So he marks down frog with three legs jumps three feet. Then he chops off another and another all with the same results. frog with two legs jumps two feet frog with one leg jumps one foot. (I know it's a sick joke) then he chops off the last leg and says "jump froggy jump." Nothing happens. So he yells "JUMP FROGGY JUMP." Nothing. So he writes in his notes. Frog with no legs goes deaf.
That's you May. Instead of considering the possibility of the most obvious answer you assert "mysterious inexplicable" ones. And how do you know these things? from years of refusing to do any meaningful tests. well done.
Sutton's Law. "That's where the money is."
Inexplicable nonsense plus sales technique = more money.
If you got a kick out of MD's site, check out the 800 dollar Quantum Clip at May's site.
You can always check out the Message Foils too!
Bruno, Borat, WWE, Andy Kaufman, Machina Dynamica, PWB - all a fine lineage of performance art, for sure.
No doubt there is some great material to draw upon. But I do fear that the lunitic fringe on the subjectivist side does give the lunitic fringe on the objectivist side an excuse to throw out the baby with the bath water. In a moment of apparent seriousness and anger Geoff wrote the following. "That ship sailed a long time ago. New fangled speaker cables hit 30 years ago. Digital vs analog, silver vs copper, tubes vs solid state, SACD vs Redbook, mpingo discs, demagnetizers. Shall I go on?" He is grouping tubes v. SS and analog v. digital in with mpingo discs.
There are two lunitic fringes in audio and they deserve each other. The irony though is the lunitic fringe subjectivists are doing no harm to their system's actual performance and apparently really are enjoying things more with the tweeks in play. OTOH many beliefs that have come from the lunitic fringe objectivists have been demonstrated to my satisfaction to lead to choices that are objectively different in sound and subjectively inferior under blind conditions. Maybe that is why they are so pissed off all the time. Instead of screaming bias effects every time they want to crap on other peoples' *perceptions* just because those percpetions do not comply to their prejudices perhaps they should look into the effects of their own biases when it comes to the stuff that even they acknowledge makes a difference.
In performance art like this it is often difficult to discern what is real and what is not. Reality can take absurd form and well crafted parody can fool alomst anyone. Case in point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windy_City_Heat
Having worked with all the parties involved I'm pretty sure I know the truth about this one.
You know Scott, reading the above from May, even if I didn't know she was talking about you, and I had to guess who she may be talking about, I'd know she was talking about you. Although not shy about trying to debate audio science, I've deduced from my own exchanges with you that you don't have the first clue on earth of what actual audio research is about for those who work in the field; and have never done any yourself (feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong. I'm certain you will if I am). This is the Stereo Review reader's idea of what audio research is about. It appears you are the ultimate armchair critic. Always eager for a debate, but an academic one, not a meaningful one. Certainly not one where you'd admit you might be out of your depth and actually not know what you're talking about. Watching these exchanges for me, makes me think of trying to explain Massenet to a 6 year old.
Yes. You're the six year old. Stop acting like one.
Wow. That's a LOT of hostility, boy.
Lots n' lots of petty, boiling, rancid misplaced profane hostility, that is. Speaking of " bias" as you often do, your bias is definitely showing, isn't it?
So where does it come from, Scotty? C'mon, it's got to be more than audio you're hung up on!
.....Uh, and how do YOU know that?
Am I so interesting that you would rather just talk about me and avoid the subject of audio?
You must be referring to the Frog. If you go to his profile page and hit the "ignore" button you'll find life much more sensible here.
Yeah, who would have thunk that for something like that, some data might be useful!
May, audiology engineering for you is something based on oral tradition? Audiology is all based on hearsay?
A written record of impartial blind studies being done? Who on Earth in the product marketing business would consider such an idea?
Wow, talk about a missed opportunity!
Maybe it could, oh, I don't, be repeated?
Maybe check the audiology literature. I'm sure those earthshaking findings would have been shared. I bet the dog ate it, eh?
Pages