Tech That Flopped!

In related news, in science, as of today:

"Quantum theory has many strange features compared to classical theory," Richens told Phys.org. "Traditionally we study how the classical world emerges from the quantum, but we set out to reverse this reasoning to see how the classical world shapes the quantum. In doing so we show that one of its strangest features, entanglement, is totally unsurprising. This hints that much of the apparent strangeness of quantum theory is an inevitable consequence of going beyond classical theory, or perhaps even a consequence of our inability to leave classical theory behind."

Although the full proof is very detailed, the main idea behind it is simply that any theory that describes reality must behave like classical theory in some limit. This requirement seems pretty obvious, but as the physicists show, it imparts strong constraints on the structure of any non-classical theory.

Quantum theory fulfills this requirement of having a classical limit through the process of decoherence. When a quantum system interacts with the outside environment, the system loses its quantum coherence and everything that makes it quantum. So the system becomes classical and behaves as expected by classical theory.

Here, the physicists show that any non-classical theory that recovers classical theory must contain entangled states. To prove this, they assume the opposite: that such a theory does not have entanglement. Then they show that, without entanglement, any theory that recovers classical theory must be classical theory itself—a contradiction of the original hypothesis that the theory in question is non-classical. This result implies that the assumption that such a theory does not have entanglement is false, which means that any theory of this kind must have entanglement.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-09-entanglement-inevitable-feature-reality.html#jCp

The take-away is that all possible statements, theories and seeming rules of all objective scientific analysis all contain quantum entanglement. That entanglement is unavoidable and is in everything and all potential everything(s) to come. Which, as dominoes of logic fall and regarding falling in this line of thinking... means that objectivity is a fail.

That objectivity is not universal but in a localized bubble and outside of that, is, well, a pipe dream a forced projection, a non thing, in the overall analysis. A cute experiment and it can't and does not exist. Subjectivity is illustrated by the same dominoes falling, to rule the roost in all facets.

Tough to take for some, but that's now she rolls.

Vandersteen as a brand is going quite strong, but the idea of time aligned speakers really is a niche.

Which is bizarre in that it is so vitally important an attribute/feature for a coned speaker with multiple drivers for various frequencies.

Ditto the original Intelligent Chip. The best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry. 🐭

I just read the bit you wrote on it's function, etc (IIRC I've read it before). A bit complex for most, but I'm looking at it and see that is probably the most simple explanation that can be mustered.

I see zero wrong with the science of it (not that I'm an authority), but I'm not allowed to say that on an open forum lest I get ridiculed by ...  ...  ...

that’s a shame as bass reflex is ’bass distortion in a can’ - no way around it.

Popular does not mean correct it just means popular.

Infinite baffle, as a term.. can ’loosely’ apply to a sealed box where the box resonance is below the woofer’s natural resonance and spring volume equivalent. When saying it, meaning, applying it to this given scenario... try to indicate this is the reason why you are misusing and throwing the term about.

Some confuse open baffle with infinite baffle. Open baffle is open, it has no sealed enclosure for the given low frequency driver.

Infinite baffle, as a term, more correctly applies to an actual infinite baffle, ie a wall mount where the other side is another fully separate room, or fully separated space. but it does not have to truly be sealed, this separate space... just that the two spaces, the front to be listened to and the rear to be separated - have something akin to zero capacity to interact with one another.

eg, most guitar amplifiers are what one would more correctly call open baffle, and most bass amp cabinets are either bass reflex or sealed. This is an area where the problem with home audio has created very very bad bass on the music production side. Big freaking mistake.

Home audio applications of bass reflex have made it to the bass guitar end of things and bass players are buying and using bass reflex cabinets. BIG MISTAKE. When we play this back on our rigs that use bass reflex speakers, we end up with the bass guitars sounding like MUD.

Teo should be aware of the piles of sealed box guitar speakers (most Marshalls, and many, many others), the actual extremely sophisticated bass amp rigs of varying types (some of which I own and use) utilized by professional musicians far more aware of modern technology than Teo seems to be (Aguilar…look it up), the direct to mixing board/amp mixed bass recording techniques utilized by professional sophisticated bass players, and the generally excellent bass tone of most well recorded brilliant musicians (Larry Grenadier? Avashai Cohen?) in many of the musical genres people actually carefully listen to…perhaps not in much pop or hip hop where a specific style of overload might be more appropriate, but still…mud could be part of your system, and I suggest you clean it up.

That’s quite the pile of projected suppositional strawmen.

Something nicely built up and in the end thrown in my face as if I am the shape of those things.

Bizarre. I don't know what to say except - please, don't.

"Objectivity is a fail" and "subjectivity will rule the roost in all facets" seem to be very objective statements. The assertion that ’everything is so complex that all interactions are too intricate for us to even begin to understand’ only opens the door that nothing we see or hear is real. So everything we think we know is in quicksand; not sure how that helps the discussion

Another quote randomly pulled from a 300+ page fully detailed and researched book) (I’d recently shared with someone else):

There was plenty of research on telepathy. There’d been the highly successful card experiments of Joseph Rhine, used by Mitchell (edgar-astronaut)in outer space. Even more convincing were the studies of the Maimonides Medical Center in Brooklyn in the late 1960s, conducted in its special dream research laboratory. Montague Ullman and Stanley Krippner had conducted numerous experiments like the one with the Mexican painting to see if thoughts could be sent and incorporated into dreams. The Maimonides work had been so successful that when analyzed by a University of California statistician who was expert in psychic research, the total series had showed an astonishing accuracy rate of 84per cent. The odds of this happening by chance were a quarter of a million to one.

There’d even been some evidence that people can empathetically feel another’s pain. A psychologist named Charles Tart in Berkeley had
designed a particularly brutal study, administering electric shocks to himself to see if he could ‘send’ his pain and have it register with a receiver, who was hooked up to machines which would measure heart rate, blood volume and other physiological changes.

What Tart found was that his receivers were aware of his pain, but not on a conscious level. Any empathy they might have had was registering physiologically through decreased blood volume or faster beating of the heart – but not consciously. When questioned, the participants hadn’t any idea when Tart was getting the shocks.

Tart also had shown that when two participants hypnotize each other, they experience intense common hallucinations.They also claimed to have shared an extrasensory communication, where they knew each other’s thoughts and feelings.

This bit and a thousand other bits like it, all fully properly researched by accredited scientists and fully peer reviewed and published widely, brings you to that point made recently by Elon Musk..about it being billions to one that you exist in a base reality... and are not in some sort of confined or bubbled simulation, where another set of rules is the underwriter..that the ’facts’ of the physics we have in those tombs of known physics are the unfolding reality in totality and completeness..well..that is shown to be a child’s whining forced dream that cannot ever be. Uncomfortable as it may be, for some.

Quicksand for the mind in the quandary? yes, probably. The other part is animal level denial of what the logic and the data says. Going ’la,la,la..I can’t hear you!!’...actually works. Ain’t that a peach.

Entanglement makes it so. That a reality 'superset' exists and it's not comfortable (at all!) to the 3d animal level bits of the experience.