A New Thread: 5,000th Post & New Paper!

In summary: A careful scrutiny of the footnotes is essential for a full appreciation of this paper.In summary, the paper discusses a way to send a quantum message using a Convolution Reverb.
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
And I bet that you carefully paced your activity here so that you could make this one your 5000th, right? :smile:
 
  • #3
Looks like dBB has been falsified!
 
  • #4
Nugatory said:
And I bet that you carefully paced your activity here so that you could make this one your 5000th, right? :smile:
Of course I did, but don't believe me what I say today! o0)
 
  • #5
atyy said:
Looks like dBB has been falsified!
Not very surprising, given that the same day last year we had a proof that many worlds are right (see the closed thread linked in the first post above).

Still, can you elaborate a bit?
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Demystifier said:
Not very surprising, given that the same day last year we had a proof that many worlds are right (see the closed thread linked in the first post above).

Still, can you elaborate a bit?

Maybe MWI has also been falsified.

"If a classical auditorium listens to the quantum musical state ##| \psi\rangle## in Eq. 1, then the individual listeners may perceive ##| \psi\rangle## very differently; that is, they will hear only a single one of the different tones with probabilities ##|\alpha_{c}|^{2}##, ##|\alpha_{d}|^{2}##, . . ., and ##|\alpha_{b}|^{2}##, respectively."
 
  • #7
atyy said:
Maybe MWI has also been falsified.

"If a classical auditorium listens to the quantum musical state ##| \psi\rangle## in Eq. 1, then the individual listeners may perceive ##| \psi\rangle## very differently; that is, they will hear only a single one of the different tones with probabilities ##|\alpha_{c}|^{2}##, ##|\alpha_{d}|^{2}##, . . ., and ##|\alpha_{b}|^{2}##, respectively."
You are right, the only interpretation that remains consistent with this crucial insight is the QMI (quantum music interpretation). This implies the equation
QM=QM
(quantum mechanics = quantum music). Dividing by Q, this gives
M=M
(mechanics = music) which proves that Einstein was very close to the truth (because he played violline), while Feynman was not (sounds created by drums cannot really be considered a music).

Remarkably, the same result can also be obtained in a totally different way. From the famous equation
ER=EPR
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ER=EPR ) one finds
P=1
which means that the probability P that Einstein and Rosen (ER) are right is P=1. But Einstein and Rosen agreed on everything (note ER on both sides of the ER=EPR equation), so this reduces to the conclusion that probability that Einstein alone was right is equal to one. In other words, Einstein was right. Q.E.D.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
But what if Q=0?

Or if E=0 or R=0, then P can have any value?

Maybe that can be excluded by considering ##a|0\rangle=0##?
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Am I the only one who wants to hear a quantum music piece? Hmm, I guess I could make a small computer program that simulates it...
 
  • #10
micromass said:
Am I the only one who wants to hear a quantum music piece? Hmm, I guess I could make a small computer program that simulates it...
That could be interesting. I'd like to see what you come up with if you find the time to do it.
I suspect though that it wouldn't sound the slightest bit like 'music' as defined in any cultural context.
More likely white noise is my guess.
 
  • #11
rootone said:
That could be interesting. I'd like to see what you come up with if you find the time to do it.
I suspect though that it wouldn't sound the slightest bit like 'music' as defined in any cultural context.
More likely white noise is my guess.

It would be interesting if I took two famous pieces and entangled them :biggrin:
 
  • #12
micromass said:
It would be interesting if I took two famous pieces and entangled them :biggrin:

 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, Demystifier and dlgoff
  • #13
This post is not a joke :wink::
http://www.dubbhism.com/2008/11/quantum-hall-effects-impulse-responses.html

Quote from page said:
The Quantum Hall Effects - impulse responses from nanospace for convolution reverb

After many years of fundamental research in cooperation with the Kamerlingh Onnes Laboratory (Leiden Institute of Physics) the ISM studio proudly presents 'the sound of nanospace'. It's all about levels of magnification and breaking down the wall between analog and digital sound. Quantum hall fx are nothing less than a PARADIGM SHIFT in the perception of time and space.

Hear samples - IR only, no other fx used
EDIT: My note: IR means impulse response(s), which are used in convolution reverbs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
The following paper appeared today (April 2nd), but contains an explicit comment that it was submitted at April 1st. So it deserves a full attention here:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1504.00108

This is not merely a joke, but also has a deeper message ...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes DennisN and atyy
  • #15
Demystifier said:
The following paper appeared today (April 2nd), but contains an explicit comment that it was submitted at April 1st. So it deserves a full attention here:
http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1504.00108

A careful scrutiny of the footnotes is essential for a full appreciation of this paper.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN and atyy
  • #16
Nugatory said:
A careful scrutiny of the footnotes is essential for a full appreciation of this paper.
E.g.
Paper said:
[19] Not really relevant, but we realized that we hadn’t quoted Einstein yet.
:DD
 
  • #17
Last edited by a moderator:

Related to A New Thread: 5,000th Post & New Paper!

1. What is the significance of "A New Thread: 5,000th Post & New Paper!"?

The title refers to a milestone achievement in a scientific thread on a forum, where the 5,000th post was made and a new paper was published.

2. What is the forum thread about?

The forum thread is a discussion on a specific scientific topic, such as a research paper or a scientific breakthrough. It allows scientists to share their knowledge, ideas, and findings with each other.

3. Who wrote the new paper?

The new paper was written by a scientist or team of scientists who have conducted research and experiments on a particular topic and have published their findings in a scientific journal.

4. What is the purpose of the new paper?

The purpose of the new paper is to contribute to the scientific community's knowledge and understanding of a specific topic. It may also provide new insights, theories, or potential applications for further research.

5. How does the 5,000th post relate to the new paper?

The 5,000th post is a significant milestone in the forum thread, as it shows the continuous and active discussion and collaboration among scientists. The new paper may have also been discussed or referenced in the forum thread, leading to its publication.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
1K
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
7
Replies
223
Views
6K
  • Poll
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
754
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
2
Views
650
Back
Top