Quantum Music IS COMING

[H-man]

meh ...quantisation in DAWs has been around for ages.

[trimph1]

[D.H. Miltz]

The world is a dynamic mess
Of jiggling things
It’s hard to believe
~Richard Feynman

The essential nature of matter
Lies not in objects, but in interconnections
Like chords of music, it’s beautiful
~Sophia Hoffman

The most famous virtual feline in physics, Schrodinger's cat, was devised by physicist Erwin Schrodinger to describe the hard-to-grasp ideas of quantum physics. And one of the weirdest of the concepts is that of ""quantum entanglement"". Yeah, it's so strange that even Einstein called it ""spooky action at a distance"".

And basically, it means that two particles can somehow instantly communicate with each other even though they may be very very far apart, and this very, very far apart is here the opposite ends of the universe, as an example AMONGST MANY OTHERS .

Let's say in quantum mechanics, two particles can be either black or white, but they can't be both of the same color at the same time. So if you see one particle black, you know that the other one must be white. But if your white one turns black, then your black one turns white, they just have to switch colors. One particule knows about the switching color of the other and IMMEDIATLY change into the other opposite color instantly without being near to each other, EVEN so the particles are ""separated"" (séparated without being separated, as would say the ANCIENT TAOISTS), by huge distances.

So somehow, they can communicate with each other. How can that be ? Well, so far there's no good explanation for that, but that hasn't stopped researchers from trying to put quantum mechanics to work. And they know how weird the world of quantum mechanics is.

A very famous physicist, John Wheeler, has said, if you're not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you don't understand it. Richard Feynman said it's safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. It works great, but if they tell you why they know how it works, they're lying to you, he basically said.

Now try to hear the black and the white particules in making music, the black notes you play on your quantum piano, will be instantly white notes at the end of the universe, and the white notes you play will instantly be black, and that is only on the particule level, but as said above in quantum physic a particule can ALSO be a wave and a wave can ALSO be a particule too, this opens tremendous possibles of harmonies hey ? BUT BE CAREFULL OF "" spooky entanglment "" in your Music Theory ???

Why, when you've credited your sources in your other posts, haven't you done so here? (Seems to be mostly copied and pasted from here: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131274183 ... -mechanics )

[trimph1]

He is the cut and paste master.

I didn't think he could explain that in his own words really.

[jancivil]

<FLATOW: Let's see if we can get a quick call in - Colin in Marietta, Ohio. Hi, Colin.

COLIN (Caller): Hi, thank you for having me on. I wanted to just interject and lay out a movie that I've seen that really puts an easy explanation on quantum mechanics and quantum physics. And I wanted to know if you guys have seen it. It's "What the Bleep Do We Know?"

It came out several years ago, but it had scientists, and seemed to really put quantum mechanics and the idea of quantum entanglement and spooky action at a distance very, very simple and very actually - you know, was a great movie. I just wanted to know if you guys have seen it, and how factual the points that they had in the movie were.

FLATOW: All right, Colin. Thanks for calling.

COLIN: Thank you.

Mr. SIEGFRIED: Yes, I've seen it, and all I can really say is I discussed it with a number of the leading quantum physics researchers and the consensus is that the factualness of that movie was not very high on the scale. They took some of the weird ideas and extrapolated them in ways that are not ways that practicing quantum physicists would find very sound. So, I mean, it was very interesting, but it did not really illuminate the science.

FLATOW: Well, you have some of these new age people who believe that since -they use quantum physics to say since anything is possible, why can't I be in two places at once, right?

Mr. SIEGFRIED: Well, it is open to those kinds of interpretations. And at one level, it is weird enough to say there are some strange things out in the world that we don't understand. But the people who know quantum physics the best will also tell you that it does not give you a license to speculate wildly about all kinds of things without limits.>



http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131274183 ... -mechanics)

[jancivil]

[OBYONETAOPY]

LaMonte Young and Marian Zazeela have been doing the analog equivalent with sound, light, shadow, and sculpture in their Dream House for many years now.

iNTERESTING, thanks for the link

With the same source material, no two people see/hear the same thing (which, due to physiology, acoustics, perception and myriad other factors, is true for every other human experience as well).

yeap, indeed, the human experience seems to be a QUANTUM EXPERIENCE of LIFE from the same SOURCE material, each and every ones makes his own experience of IT and no one has exactly the same experience of IT, (it's the reason why it is so hard to have sane communications amongst us, because no one experiences OR EXPERIENCED the same things, the same way as another one), this QUANTUM approach of our existencia is very well explained in a Movie called :

WHAT THE BLIP do we know of REALITY

http://www.whatthebleep.com/ (free streaming)

[OBYONETAOPY]

Why, when you've credited your sources in your other posts, haven't you done so here? (Seems to be mostly copied and pasted from here: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131274183 ... -mechanics )

WAS TOO BUZY ""REWRITING"" IT (notice the small details added that do not appear clearly in the original source), so I forgot to quote it, but now you linked it to it's source, all is fine, thanks for that and I edited it again to link it to it's source now u mentionned it...

[murnau]

Why, when you've credited your sources in your other posts, haven't you done so here? (Seems to be mostly copied and pasted from here: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131274183 ... -mechanics )

WAS TOO BUZY ""REWRITING"" IT (notice the small details added that do not appear clearly in the original source), so I forgot to quote it, but now you linked it to it's source, all is fine, thanks for that and I edited it again to link it to it's source now u mentionned it...

No but i noticed Quantum mechanics is out of your range as well. BUZY BUZY..

[whyterabbyt]

Always good to see the hijacking of science into mystical pseudoscience superwoowooo. Magneto! Electro! Atomic! Micro! Cyber! Nano! Quantum! Woooooowoooooooooo!

Mandatory cat pic required....

[Sendy]

I can has quantum superposition plox?

[zerocrossing]

That sure is a whole lot of words that don't mean anything.

[jancivil]

With the same source material, no two people see/hear the same thing (which, due to physiology, acoustics, perception and myriad other factors, is true for every other human experience as well).

yeap, indeed, the human experience seems to be a QUANTUM EXPERIENCE of LIFE from the same SOURCE material, each and every ones makes his own experience of IT and no one has exactly the same experience of IT, (it's the reason why it is so hard to have sane communications amongst us, because no one experiences OR EXPERIENCED the same things, the same way as another one), this QUANTUM approach of our existencia is very well explained in a Movie called :

WHAT THE BLIP do we know of REALITY

First, the subjective nature of experience does not need 'quantum physics' at all. These are two different subjects, actually. The quantum <uncertainty> derives from the double-slit experiment and the theory states something specific about what happened.

One thing that happens is when you create a (false) narrative about things you don't know about at all, in preference for your straw man (musicians that would rather know are arrogant elitist suppressives, while you're just a free, childlike spirit) to pose against; or abuse this science in order to desolidify concepts the science does not do ("BE CAREFULL OF "" spooky entanglment "" in your Music Theory"), as an extension really of that disagreement & the opposite of the intent to communicate, but to push an ideology that is anti-knowledge, is that there is no real conversation. When you cherry-pick a web page and ignore (or fail to read?) the one person in it that appears to have the better understanding of the thing ("But the people who know quantum physics the best will also tell you that it does not give you a license to speculate wildly about all kinds of things without limits."), preferring this movie title as a statement while it was deprecated in the actual material you cherry-picked from, honest communication is not available after a point. You're only kidding yourself.

[jancivil]

WAS TOO BUZY ""REWRITING"" IT (notice the small details added that do not appear clearly in the original source),

No, you aren't illuminating the source material, you are using it to make your own statement, in fundamental disagreement with "I discussed [What the BLIP do we know] with a number of the leading quantum physics researchers and the consensus is that the factualness of that movie was not very high on the scale. They took some of the weird ideas and extrapolated them in ways that are not ways that practicing quantum physicists would find very sound. So, I mean, it was very interesting, but it did not really illuminate the science.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, for example - it's the core of quantum mechanics - doesn't mean that everything is uncertain, because Heisenberg's principle is really very certain. So it's easy to get carried away and extend it to things where it doesn't really apply. But I think keeping it within the realm of physics is still very much weird and fun enough."

Now it's as if there's something unclear we all need your help with. No, and one supposes you could clear up your understanding of what 'quantum mechanics' etc even is.

[Doug1978]

IBTL (IBT'HPC'?)