|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
174.236.195.237
In Reply to: RE: The world of acoustics posted by Analog Scott on March 23, 2015 at 12:00:51
To say that physics is the same as it was in the 1980 s is equivalent to saying we have not learned anything new since then. Physics as a field of study is dedicated to uncovering reality. Thus physics is continually changing. It is reality that hasn't changed, only our understanding of it. I use the word "our" editorially. Lol I encourage you to make a trip to your local library and check out some books on Logic. As I sell room acoustics products that are quantum mechanical in nature I suspect I'm a better judge than you are as to whether quantum mechanical devices can or cannot affect the sound. I have at least three such products. I could mention the Ultra Tweeters, they're another example of a quantum mechanical device that affects the room acoustics.
Edits: 03/23/15Follow Ups:
well maybe we have a misunderstanding here. When *I* say that "physics hasn't changed since the 80s" I am talking about the actual laws of physics not our understanding of them. No point in getting bogged down in semantics. If you want to call it "reality" instead of the "physics" just go back and replace the word "physics" with reality in my posts because that is what I was talking about.
But let's get back to the physics of room acoustics since we are talking specifically about room acoustics. I would assert that we haven't learned anything new since the 80s about the fundamental nature of the physics of room acoustics. We have certainly developed better tools for analysis and are better at measuring and modelling room acoustics largely due to the improved computing power of CADs.But those tools all still rely on our pre 1980s understanding of room acoustics. There are no studies that I know of showing anything that would suggest room acoustics as they pertain to human hearing is governed by anything other than well known Newtonian principles. Princilples that have been well known since before the 80s.
If you have anything scientific to offer that runs contrary to that assertion I'd love to see it. Any new body of verifiable evidence. Any new studies. Any new theories that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I would be very interested in reading about it.
But the physical laws governing room acoustics really are as basic to physics as all other Newtonian laws. For most **practical purposes** they are all we need and the evidence in support is pretty conclusive. Are there quantum fluctuations happening in every listening room? Yeah, of course, billions and billions of them. Are they affecting the audible acoustics of a listening room? No.
Again, if you have something with scientific substance that says otherwise I'd love to read about it.
Thanks for lecture, but I am the theoretical physicist in this discussion. And I have been designing quantum mechanical devices for ten years. One need look no further than the humble CD laser for an example of an audio related quantum mechanical device. As I already said, I have at least three quantum mechanical audio products. You can hide your head in the sand all you want. Schroedinger's cat is actually intended to illustrate how quantum mechanics on a micro scale affects reality on macro scale. Your belief that quantum mechanics is somehow relegated to the infinitesimally small is a common misconception. There is no fine line between quantum physics and classical physics. How small can something really be and still affect the sound seems like an excellent title for a new thread. Lol
Edits: 03/24/15
I asked for some real science and all you give me was posturing. I'd ask again for some real science but I know you don't have any.
Cia
And you accuse me of posturing. I haven't read such posturing jibber jabber in a long time. Fact is, some if my products don't even operate by physics, more like mind matter interaction and or biology. So your demands fir physics explanations are kind of a Strawman Argument. See my response to Rick, the one that defines the de Broglie wavelength, that's as good a place to start as any, science wise and quantum mechanics wise. I'm not sure why you're getting all worked up as quantum mechanical audio devices have been around like forever, even ones for room acoustics. What's your hang up?
Edits: 03/24/15 03/24/15 03/24/15
Your products are a fraud. Your business is a sham. This isn't about you are your scamming. It's about the physics of room acoustics. Your act is really way too old and really quite messed up.
Ah, playing the old personal attack card, eh? Wow, you ran out of ammo in a hurry this time. Just like old times. Lol. Since you aren't able to discuss physics without having a hiss fit can I suggest you go put some makeup on a goat?The more things change the more they stay the same. Old audiophile expression.
;-)
Edits: 03/25/15 03/25/15 03/25/15
I haven't made any personal attacks. I tried to engage you in a discussion on the physics of room acoustics and as usual you balked. What personal attacks have I made?
Edits: 03/25/15
"There is no fine line between quantum physics and classical physics. How small can something really be and still affect the sound seems like an excellent title for a new thread. Lol"
Yea! Well put!
I read a neat opinion a while back, unfortunately I don't recall where, that if the equation needs Boltzmann's constant then you are at the "quantum level".
Perhaps that the closest thing to an answer there can be. My world is one of "simplifying assumptions". What makes traditional engineering work is knowing what you can "safely" ignore. Naturally as our technology and understanding have improved it's practical to ignore less than it was fifty years ago, but the threshold just shifts, it's still there.
Continuity is a judgement, not the way of the universe. But we try to work around it...
Rick
Well, while Boltzman's constant is kind of the right idea it's actually the de Broglie wavelength that determines the transition point from classical physics and quantum physics for things like CD lasers and the Intelligent Chip and many other things. Thus, when a particle, e.g. Electron is confined I,e., trapped, in an enclosed space with dimensions less than about 50 atomic diameters (10 nanometers) it can no longer move as a particle but MUST move as a wave. And photons emitted in this case must be coherent, I.e. Waves. Thus the CD laser is an example of photons acting only as waves. So is the Intelligent Chip, I.e. Quantum dots.
Edits: 03/24/15
"Boltzman's constant is kind of the right idea"
Perhaps it was Planck's constant, that would make more sense. I'm reading a book on thermodynamics and have Boltzmann on the brain. And it's not a pretty picture...
Could you recommend further reading re. the trapped electron business?
TNX, Rick
They don't call it "nanotechnology" for nothing. Forget Planck's constant and Boltzman's constant. The scale you're looking for is on the order of 10-9 meters. Make sense? That's what the de Broglie wavelength is all about. Google quantum confinement. That's where the effects take place. But as schroedinger wisely pointed out quantum mechanics reaches to the macro. That's kind of the whole point.Big things have small beginnings. - Prometheus
Edits: 03/25/15 03/25/15
"But as schroedinger wisely pointed out quantum mechanics reaches to the macro. That's kind of the whole point.
And that's just what I wish to understand!
Thanks for the pointer.
Rick
Look out! Rick is on the move!
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: