http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA

Check out those keys. They're guilt-edged. Who makes guilt-edged keys?! 
And check out the rest of the organ too... looks pretty amazing, eh? And 
the guy himself; he looks like a funderal director.

Pitty the registration is so flat, eh? (And is it me, or is this thing 
tuned weirdly?)

Also love the key the video and sound are out of sync...

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA

  Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
> cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
> when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.

It's great when it's played well, but I'm having trouble tracking down a 
copy being played well on YouTube.

I should probably point out that *I* can't play it very well either. 
Then again, I don't have a 4-manual church organ to play it with. ;-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Check out those keys. They're guilt-edged. Who makes guilt-edged keys?! 

Anyone trying to spend lots of money on something as a business expense, or 
trying to "hide" money from others. Of course, we don't tax churches in the 
USA, so I'm just being cynical maybe.

> And check out the rest of the organ too... looks pretty amazing, eh? And 
> the guy himself; he looks like a funderal director.

I think I saw that guy perform in the USA once. He talks like that too. (I 
was sitting pretty far back, so I might be misrecognising him.)

> Pitty the registration is so flat, eh? (And is it me, or is this thing 
> tuned weirdly?)

Could be a limitation of the recording.

> Also love the key the video and sound are out of sync...

I'm not sure how you can tell with a pipe organ, considering the pipes take 
a while to start sounding.  But HD youtube video is always out of sync with 
the sound. Perhaps they're converting the sound at 29.97fps and the video at 
30fps, which might also explain why it sounds flat.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA

that's some organ! :)

> Pitty the registration is so flat, eh? (And is it me, or is this thing
> tuned weirdly?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier#Intended_tuning

At Bach's time, tuning was not quite like the one employed today.  Perhaps an
"authentic performance"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authentic_performance#Tuning_and_pitch

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:

> that's some organ! :)

Hell yes!

I'm going to go out on a limb and say French?

>> Pitty the registration is so flat, eh? (And is it me, or is this thing
>> tuned weirdly?)
> 
> At Bach's time, tuning was not quite like the one employed today.  Perhaps an
> "authentic performance"?

No, I'm pretty sure the *temperment* is unchaged. More like the organ is 
just tuned flat. (Apparently many historic organs are...)

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

Post a reply to this message

>> Pitty the registration is so flat, eh? (And is it me, or is this thing 
>> tuned weirdly?)
> 
> Could be a limitation of the recording.

Apparently many historic organs are tuned flatter than modern ones.

>> Also love the key the video and sound are out of sync...
> 
> I'm not sure how you can tell with a pipe organ, considering the pipes 
> take a while to start sounding.

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.

Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...

> But HD youtube video is always out of 
> sync with the sound. Perhaps they're converting the sound at 29.97fps 
> and the video at 30fps, which might also explain why it sounds flat.

Maybe.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:38:42 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
>it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...

Not with a quantum organ ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
> it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...

  It's probably system-dependant. In my computer if there's any lag, it's
the sound lagging behind. Barely.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
>> it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...
> 
> Not with a quantum organ ;)

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...

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

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 22:34:22 +0100, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>>> Look closer: I think the sound *preceeds* the keys, rather than lagging 
>>> it. Which, obviously, is physically impossible...
>> 
>> Not with a quantum organ ;)
>
>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...

Not if you have the Reverse Causality stop pulled out.

And that raises the point, does a recording device count as an observer?
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am Sun, 06 Sep 2009 20:38:42 +0100 schrieb Orchid XP v8:

> 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 ;).

Post a reply to this message

Warp schrieb:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA
> 
>   Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
> cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
> when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.

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

It actually makes me wonder what bands like Jethro Tull might have made 
out of it.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Warp schrieb:
> > Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pY08e_tdtA
> >
> >   Bach's Toccata&Fugue is so often used that it has become basically a
> > cliche, but it still manages to be majestic and impressive, especially
> > when played by a professional on a real, high-quality church organ.
>
> 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

coming full cycle then.  It is thought by scholars that this Toccata is an
adaptation to organ by Bach of a previous song, by its structure possibly for
violin or some early relative indeed.

Post a reply to this message

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 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

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 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

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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 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.

Uh, so no. The point was that the result was unobservable from outside the 
box. How does the scientist know whether the waveform was collapsed or not?

> The point of the thought experiment was to describe the apparent 
> weirdness only, not to talk about macro level objects behaving as single 
> particles. ;)

It hasn't anything to do with single particles. The point was that you can 
have an entire collection of particles in superposition. The device 
measuring the radiation goes into superposition. Why doesn't the cat?

(After all, the whole thing behind quantum computing and bose-einstein 
condensates is to get multiple particles in superposition. It's certainly 
*not* limited to a single particle, or there wouldn't be apparent weirdness 
about it brought up by the cat.)

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> (After all, the whole thing behind quantum computing and bose-einstein 
> condensates is to get multiple particles in superposition. It's 
> certainly *not* limited to a single particle, or there wouldn't be 
> apparent weirdness about it brought up by the cat.)
> 

Hmm. Well, this is true, but the point of such a condensate is that you 
have slowed the motion of all particles, as much as feasible, to the 
point where they **cannot** undergo any sort of transitions, beyond the 
ones they already undertook to reach the state. And, since such a 
state's simplest form is one where all particles are in superposition. I 
suppose, if you froze the cat... but, I think we would tend to agree 
that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)

Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as "interaction 
with another particle." Indeed, figuring out the probabilities of where the 
particle goes is basically calculating all possible interactions the 
particle might have had while you're not looking. There's no fundamental 
reason in the equations that the wave forms should collapse, and there's no 
fundamental reason why any lab equipment you might set up shouldn't be in a 
superposition of states. Indeed, if you look up how a delayed choice quantum 
eraser works, you can see that the particle can be in a superposition of 
states even after it has been measured and recorded, let alone interacting 
with one other particle. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser

(And incidentally, the word is "moot", not "mute." :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New schrieb:
> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
> "interaction with another particle."

Actually it is - the observing apparatus (be it a human or a measuring 
equipment) being comprised of particles, and the observation being 
performed by having the particle actually interact.

The interesting thing here being that there is no such thing as an 
outside observer in this entire universe (as, by definition, such an 
observer would obviously have to be not in but outside of it).

I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
outside observer in this sense.


Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
we have is interaction.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
> we have is interaction.

That is, indeed, 82% crazy.

It also seems oddly descriptive of my life... Forever observing other 
people, yet almost never actually interacting with them.

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

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> Darren New schrieb:
>> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
>> "interaction with another particle."
> 
> Actually it is - the observing apparatus (be it a human or a measuring 
> equipment) being comprised of particles, and the observation being 
> performed by having the particle actually interact.

I was stressing the singular there. An observation doesn't happen when the 
particle interacts with one other particle.  I.e., it's not "we don't know 
what the result will be until the particle interacts with another particle, 
and then the wave function collapses." The particle can interact with 
arbitrary many other particles before the "wave function collapses."

> I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
> outside observer in this sense.

Right.  Or a cat. :-)

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

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The interesting thing here being that there is no such thing as an 
> outside observer in this entire universe (as, by definition, such an 
> observer would obviously have to be not in but outside of it).
> 
> I guess it is safe to claim that a flesh-and-blood human being is not an 
> outside observer in this sense.
> 
> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only thing 
> we have is interaction.

One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
particles.  XD

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse to 
> particles.  XD

One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Robert Sawyer has investigated that in a quite delightful novel called Starplex.

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

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> 
>> Or, to put it in other words: Observation is an illusion. The only 
>> thing we have is interaction.
> 
> That is, indeed, 82% crazy.

Why is that?  You've heard of Heisenberg, haven't you? :)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Tim Cook wrote:
>> One could argue that as a proof-point towards the existence of a 
>> God-entity; something whose sole raison d'etre is to be an outside 
>> observer which permits all the waveforms of the universe to collapse 
>> to particles.  XD
> 
> One could, but one would be wrong. ;-)

Wrong?  Qualitatively, it wouldn't be 'wrong' so much as 
'unprovable'...either way.  'Wrong' is reserved for statements which are 
*provably* untrue.  'Not provable'!='not right' or 'not wrong'

:3

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> 'Wrong' is reserved for statements which are *provably* untrue.  

I would think you could prove that to be untrue, just like you can prove 
there are no hidden variables.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)
> 
> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
> "interaction with another particle." Indeed, figuring out the 
> probabilities of where the particle goes is basically calculating all 
> possible interactions the particle might have had while you're not 
> looking. There's no fundamental reason in the equations that the wave 
> forms should collapse, and there's no fundamental reason why any lab 
> equipment you might set up shouldn't be in a superposition of states. 
> Indeed, if you look up how a delayed choice quantum eraser works, you 
> can see that the particle can be in a superposition of states even after 
> it has been measured and recorded, let alone interacting with one other 
> particle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
> 
> (And incidentally, the word is "moot", not "mute." :-)
> 

My personal thought on the matter is that any single particle can be in 
a quantum state, or you could do so in a condensate, but that, in normal 
conditions, the vibrations introduced by thermal variance, and possibly 
other sources of energy, introduce a situation where its no longer 
possible for all particles to be in a single state. Once any one falls 
out of a superposition state, its interaction with others causes *all* 
of their quantum states to collapse into a specific state. After that, 
since no single particle is ever, for any significant amount of time, 
out of contact with other particles effects, they cannot return to an 
unknown state. Now, if such state transitions where instantaneous, we 
*would* have a problem. But, a recent experiment showed that they are 
not. Basically, if it was instant, then you couldn't do something to a 
particle, which collapsed its state, stop that state change part way, 
and make it instead shift to a different one. You would never have 
enough time to introduce the second change. However, the experiment 
showed that, in fact, you "could" introduce such a second change, and 
reverse the partial transition, which was already taking place.

So, no, an object, above absolute zero, can never reach superposition, 
or any other quantum state, since its own particles will prevent such 
transitions, via their constant interactions, none of which allow for 
enough time to pass in which a state change could happen. In effect, 
their proximity "locks" them in what ever state they are already in. To 
change the state of one particle, you would have to induce a state 
change in *all of them* at the same time, or at least a sufficient 
number that they majority would impose their state, instead of reverting 
to their prior state, via interface with the other, unchanged, particles.

It may also be a case that a large mass of particles will fall into 
states that are stable, and that most quantum states, in such large 
collections, are *not*.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> that its alive/dead state would be a mute point after that. ;)
>>
>> Well, the point remains that "observation" is not the same as 
>> "interaction with another particle." Indeed, figuring out the 
>> probabilities of where the particle goes is basically calculating all 
>> possible interactions the particle might have had while you're not 
>> looking. There's no fundamental reason in the equations that the wave 
>> forms should collapse, and there's no fundamental reason why any lab 
>> equipment you might set up shouldn't be in a superposition of states. 
>> Indeed, if you look up how a delayed choice quantum eraser works, you 
>> can see that the particle can be in a superposition of states even 
>> after it has been measured and recorded, let alone interacting with 
>> one other particle. 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
>>
>> (And incidentally, the word is "moot", not "mute." :-)
>>
> 
> My personal thought on the matter is that any single particle can be in 
> a quantum state, or you could do so in a condensate, but that, in normal 
> conditions, the vibrations introduced by thermal variance, and possibly 
> other sources of energy, introduce a situation where its no longer 
> possible for all particles to be in a single state. Once any one falls 
> out of a superposition state, its interaction with others causes *all* 
> of their quantum states to collapse into a specific state. After that, 
> since no single particle is ever, for any significant amount of time, 
> out of contact with other particles effects, they cannot return to an 
> unknown state. Now, if such state transitions where instantaneous, we 
> *would* have a problem. But, a recent experiment showed that they are 
> not. Basically, if it was instant, then you couldn't do something to a 
> particle, which collapsed its state, stop that state change part way, 
> and make it instead shift to a different one. You would never have 
> enough time to introduce the second change. However, the experiment 
> showed that, in fact, you "could" introduce such a second change, and 
> reverse the partial transition, which was already taking place.
> 
> So, no, an object, above absolute zero, can never reach superposition, 
> or any other quantum state, since its own particles will prevent such 
> transitions, via their constant interactions, none of which allow for 
> enough time to pass in which a state change could happen. In effect, 
> their proximity "locks" them in what ever state they are already in. To 
> change the state of one particle, you would have to induce a state 
> change in *all of them* at the same time, or at least a sufficient 
> number that they majority would impose their state, instead of reverting 
> to their prior state, via interface with the other, unchanged, particles.
> 
> It may also be a case that a large mass of particles will fall into 
> states that are stable, and that most quantum states, in such large 
> collections, are *not*.
> 
Sigh.. Sorry, thought I had changed/removed all the stupid poorly used 
"". :p Missed a few. Sigh...

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> My personal thought on the matter is 

Did you ever study this stuff formally? Or are you guessing?

> conditions, the vibrations introduced by thermal variance, and possibly 
> other sources of energy, introduce a situation where its no longer 
> possible for all particles to be in a single state. 

I'm not even sure what that means, but since I can observe the effects of 
quantum mechanical superpositions at the macroscopic scale (without even 
having any sophisticated equipment) I find this an unlikely explanation.

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

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott schrieb:
> Sigh.. Sorry, thought I had changed/removed all the stupid poorly used 
> "". :p Missed a few. Sigh...

You are forgiven; we'll file that as "random thermal noise" :-)


The thing that presently intrigues me most about the quantom world is 
the question: Do probability waveforms really always /collapse/ when 
particles interact - in the sense that the resulting effect is 
/definite/ - or do they just "narrow down"?

That is, if for instance you do the double-slit experiment with single 
particles, firing them at a photographic plate - will this really result 
in a pattern of exposed spots on an otherwise non-exposed plate, or will 
it rather result in a pattern of spots that are 99.99999% likely to be 
exposd, on a plate otherwise 99.99999% likely to be non-exposed?

Or, to put it in other words: Is /fact/ something that actually 
manifests whenever independent particles interact, or is it just an 
illusion all throughout, and "independent" particles are merely just 
"weakly entangled"?

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The thing that presently intrigues me most about the quantom world is 
> the question: Do probability waveforms really always /collapse/ when 
> particles interact - in the sense that the resulting effect is 
> /definite/ - or do they just "narrow down"?

First, you have Plank's uncertainty. Second, you have a lack of invariance 
over scale, meaning your exposure of a particular "spot" on the film isn't 
going to be smaller than an atom anyway.

> That is, if for instance you do the double-slit experiment with single 
> particles, firing them at a photographic plate - will this really result 
> in a pattern of exposed spots on an otherwise non-exposed plate, or will 
> it rather result in a pattern of spots that are 99.99999% likely to be 
> exposd, on a plate otherwise 99.99999% likely to be non-exposed?

That doesn't make sense. Either the spots are exposed, or they aren't. (Of 
course, even exposed spots can spontaneously move around in the same way 
that all the air in your room may spontaneously shoot up into one corner.)

> Or, to put it in other words: Is /fact/ something that actually 
> manifests whenever independent particles interact, or is it just an 
> illusion all throughout, and "independent" particles are merely just 
> "weakly entangled"?

I'm pretty sure that particles which have never interacted cannot be even 
weakly entangled. But it takes more than a small number of particles 
interacting to make something "fact" at the macroscopic level.


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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> My personal thought on the matter is 
> 
> Did you ever study this stuff formally? Or are you guessing?
> 
>> conditions, the vibrations introduced by thermal variance, and 
>> possibly other sources of energy, introduce a situation where its no 
>> longer possible for all particles to be in a single state. 
> 
> I'm not even sure what that means, but since I can observe the effects 
> of quantum mechanical superpositions at the macroscopic scale (without 
> even having any sophisticated equipment) I find this an unlikely 
> explanation.
> 
This isn't saying that you can't produce special conditions where the 
general rule is violated, just that, outside those conditions, it does. 
Much like Newton applying in a general sense, relativity in others, and 
there being some cases where that doesn't *quite* apply either, given 
the correct conditions.

And, no, I can't say that I have studied it extensively, but I am not 
guessing either. We know, unless we are seeing things, that every atom 
in a room doesn't spontaneously *leap* to one corner. There has to be a 
reason for it, and the best reason available is that, under normal 
conditions, interactions between particle, weak or otherwise, prevent 
it. This is why you have to create conditions where some of those are 
"not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why 
the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't, 
based on observation of everything else. Why can you intentionally 
violate the rules, when normally nothing, including the intent to do 
something, like walking through a wall, which would be a similar 
violation, is normally never happening? Enlighten me. What else, other 
than freeform interaction, without something specifically designed to 
"create" conditions where a violation of the normal rules can happen, 
stops it from happening all the time?

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There has to be a 
> reason for it, and the best reason available is that, under normal 
> conditions, interactions between particle, weak or otherwise, prevent 
> it.

Yes, of course. The only point I'm contesting is the assertion that a single 
interaction with a single particle is enough to collapse the waveform and 
serve as an "observation".

> "not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why 
> the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't, 

Who says they shouldn't?

> Enlighten me. What else, other 
> than freeform interaction, without something specifically designed to 
> "create" conditions where a violation of the normal rules can happen, 
> stops it from happening all the time?

Probability. You *can* walk thru the wall. The odds against it happening are 
just 1^-1000.

Just like you *can* randomly shuffle a deck of cards and come up with Ace 
thru King in each suit in order when you're done. It's just so phenomenally 
rare that you'd never expect to see it happen.

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

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> There has to be a reason for it, and the best reason available is 
>> that, under normal conditions, interactions between particle, weak or 
>> otherwise, prevent it.
> 
> Yes, of course. The only point I'm contesting is the assertion that a 
> single interaction with a single particle is enough to collapse the 
> waveform and serve as an "observation".
> 
>> "not" happening. The question isn't if, but what is doing it, and why 
>> the macro level states you manage happen at all, when they shouldn't, 
> 
> Who says they shouldn't?
> 
>> Enlighten me. What else, other than freeform interaction, without 
>> something specifically designed to "create" conditions where a 
>> violation of the normal rules can happen, stops it from happening all 
>> the time?
> 
> Probability. You *can* walk thru the wall. The odds against it happening 
> are just 1^-1000.
> 
> Just like you *can* randomly shuffle a deck of cards and come up with 
> Ace thru King in each suit in order when you're done. It's just so 
> phenomenally rare that you'd never expect to see it happen.
> 
Hmm. The problem with such probabilities is, much like winning the 
lotto, no matter how rare they are, someone is bound to observe 
"something" that is doing them, given the number of total attempts 
(i.e., the number of objects, just on this planet, and the number of 
fractions of a second that are available, even in a human life time). To 
not happen, the odds would have to be so unlikely that they could only 
transpire like.. twice in the entirely history of the universe? I am not 
convinced.

-- 
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

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> the odds would have to be so unlikely that they could only 
> transpire like.. twice in the entirely history of the universe? 

If that. Probably closer to 10^-100 times in the entire history of the 
universe.  If you're talking about something like all the atoms in a room 
suddenly all going left and right, leaving you in the middle suffocating.

Remember, there's some 10^22 atoms of nitrogen in each gram of atmosphere in 
your room. If each one is 25% likely to be going the right direction, what's 
the likelyhood a kilogram of them will all go the right direction?

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

Post a reply to this message