clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> It appears to me that there's even more potential in that piece than the
> classic church organ cliche - just listen to this:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg8Fa_EUQqY

Wow.  I thought I was a heretic for getting into the whole Bach-on-a-piano
thing.  I can't say I really enjoyed that interpretation, but at the same time
I don't see the whole point of strict interpretations.  I was reading about
Sviatoslov Richter the other day.  Among other things, he insisted on putting
an apology with a CD of the Italian Concerto for a single note he had missed
unnoticed for forty years.  I mean those composers were pretty incredible, but
it seems wrong to elevate their works to that of unerring perfection.  If you
have something to add, then why not?

That said, it is possible to go too far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpALlP_7lE

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> That said, it is possible to go too far:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvpALlP_7lE

That's quite impressive.  I mean, anyone can do the handcuffs, but the 
sack really is the coup de grace :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

>> Depends which stops. The bass pipes in particular tend to be slow to
>> speak, as do low diapasons. But reed pipes tend to speak very promptly.
>>
> Never thought about that, interesting! So does that mean you have to take 
> into account when to press the lower keys, that it takes longer and 
> therefore you have to play them earlier than the higher notes and have to 
> play quite "irregular" to get a "regular" sound"? That sounds very 
> difficult to get right! And in fact, that could be a reason, why it 
> sounds so awful in church sometimes ;).

In a well-maintained organ, all but the huge pedal pipes speak quite 
promptly. I'm told you have to play the pedal notes fractionally early 
(but only fractionally). Most of the other pipes have a delay short 
enough for it not to matter too much. (It just means that, e.g., if you 
play *really* fast notes, they don't come out very loud.)

Of course, a typical village church organ is another matter entirely... ;-)

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Don't be stupid. If it was a *quantum* organ, it would be completely 
> silent until somebody goes into the room to listen to it - otherwise it 
> would just be a superposition of all possible notes...

  That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
is true, which is not an accepted fact.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Don't be stupid. If it was a *quantum* organ, it would be completely 
>> silent until somebody goes into the room to listen to it - otherwise it 
>> would just be a superposition of all possible notes...
> 
>   That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics
> is true, which is not an accepted fact.
> 
Isn't that a bit like saying that its not an accepted fact that the sky 
is green due to large amounts of trees floating in the clouds? Its not 
even "not accepted", its flat out wrong.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott schrieb:
>>   That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum 
>> mechanics
>> is true, which is not an accepted fact.
>>
> Isn't that a bit like saying that its not an accepted fact that the sky 
> is green due to large amounts of trees floating in the clouds? Its not 
> even "not accepted", its flat out wrong.

Quote from Wikipedia:

"According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the 
Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific 
interpretation of quantum mechanics"

So leaving aside that it /is/ apparently quite accepted (if only as a 
theory instead of a fact), what makes you so sure that it is "flat out 
wrong"?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Patrick Elliott schrieb:
>>>   That may be only true if the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum 
>>> mechanics
>>> is true, which is not an accepted fact.
>>>
>> Isn't that a bit like saying that its not an accepted fact that the 
>> sky is green due to large amounts of trees floating in the clouds? Its 
>> not even "not accepted", its flat out wrong.
> 
> Quote from Wikipedia:
> 
> "According to a poll at a Quantum Mechanics workshop in 1997[7], the 
> Copenhagen interpretation is the most widely-accepted specific 
> interpretation of quantum mechanics"
> 
> So leaving aside that it /is/ apparently quite accepted (if only as a 
> theory instead of a fact), what makes you so sure that it is "flat out 
> wrong"?

The problem isn't the Copenhagen interpretation, its how it gets 
misused. Observer, in the context of quantum physics, means, "What ever 
happens to nudge the particle, causing it to change states." This 
**can't** be a person, unless you can honestly think of some means to 
invent an experiment where a particle(s) is held in a quantum state, and 
you could get some fool to walk through the middle of them. So, no.. A 
quantum instrument doesn't need someone "listening" to it to do 
something. First off, such a thing doesn't exists *as* a device, unless 
you have some mechanism by which you can change states *in* the device. 
If you can do that, then the "observer" is already in the room, and you 
don't need any conscious mind to be there for it to do anything. If it 
lacks this capacity, then you could have one, 50, of 50 million, people 
in the room, and its going to just sit their, doing nothing, because 
"observers", as is commonly used to mean, "Something sufficiently 
conscious to notice, and be aware of noticing, something else.", are not 
even part of the equation. When the quantum tree falls in the forest, if 
still makes a noise, because it hit something, not because something 
where there to see hear it hit, same as a normal tree.

So, no, I am not griping about the Copenhagen interpretation, I am 
griping about the inability of people to grasp that it doesn't mean what 
*most* people interpret the interpretation to imply, vis a vie 
consciousness. That isn't simply not implied by it, its outright 
contradicted by it.

That said, sorry for the confusion. I had assumed that the term being 
used applied to the poor reasoning derived from quantum theory and 
people's misunderstanding of what "observer" meant, not the basic 
principles of quantum physics, which invariably result in people 
thinking that a "person" needs to be in the room for anything to happen.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> invent an experiment where a particle(s) is held in a quantum state, and 
> you could get some fool to walk through the middle of them. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate

Note that you can make these bigger than the room the equipment is in, so 
theoretically you could walk thru it. :-)

> So, no.. A 
> quantum instrument doesn't need someone "listening" to it to do 
> something. 

This was, indeed, the whole point of the Schodinger's cat argument. Is the 
cat alive enough to collapse its own waveform?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   I ordered stamps from Zazzle that read "Place Stamp Here".

Post a reply to this message

>>> Depends which stops. The bass pipes in particular tend to be slow to
>>> speak, as do low diapasons. But reed pipes tend to speak very promptly.
>>>
>> Never thought about that, interesting! So does that mean you have to 
>> take into account when to press the lower keys, that it takes longer 
>> and therefore you have to play them earlier than the higher notes and 
>> have to play quite "irregular" to get a "regular" sound"? That sounds 
>> very difficult to get right! And in fact, that could be a reason, why 
>> it sounds so awful in church sometimes ;).
> 
> In a well-maintained organ, all but the huge pedal pipes speak quite 
> promptly. I'm told you have to play the pedal notes fractionally early 
> (but only fractionally). Most of the other pipes have a delay short 
> enough for it not to matter too much. (It just means that, e.g., if you 
> play *really* fast notes, they don't come out very loud.)

Now, if you want a *real* problem... Try playing an organ where one of 
the ranks of pipes is 200 feet above your head, so there's a split 
second delay between hitting the key and hearing the note. ;-) Now try 
that in a cathedral with a 7 second reverb time...


-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> This was, indeed, the whole point of the Schodinger's cat argument. Is 
> the cat alive enough to collapse its own waveform?
> 

Well, that would seem obvious. Its bigger than a single particle, so 
yes. The point of the thought experiment was to describe the apparent 
weirdness only, not to talk about macro level objects behaving as single 
particles. ;)

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message