FUTURE OF HI-FI

[The_Lhc]

If this fundemental basic concept hasn't changed for a hundred years then it's not all that likey that something radically new will emerge in the next couple of decades.

That doesn't follow at all, the pace of progress is increasing, it appears to me, rather than slowing down, so I'd say it's getting more likely to happen all the time. I'd be willing to bet a reasonable amount of money that the next speaker technology breakthrough will include graphene in some way.

I do hope that I'm proved wrong though.

<Insert appropriate Yoda quote here>

 

[hammill]

"Ye cannae change the laws of physics!"

The laws of physics can be changed,

No, the underlying laws of physics are immutable. We just haven't figured out what they are exactly yet, so our definitions may well change.

Indeed. Good use of immutable BTW.

 

[The_Lhc]

Insert appropriate Yoda quote here

I think Yoda was referring to speaker enclosures when he said "Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?"

He may well have been, but that wasn't the one I was thinking of.

 

[steve_1979]

Insert appropriate Yoda quote here

I think Yoda was referring to speaker enclosures when he said

"Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?"

 

[chebby]

No, the underlying laws of physics are immutable. We just haven't figured out what they are exactly yet, so our definitions may well change.

Weren't they immutable before Einstein as well? Seems a bit 'convenient' to say there are immutable laws but we change them all the time to fit new models.

 

[The_Lhc]

No, the underlying laws of physics are immutable. We just haven't figured out what they are exactly yet, so our definitions may well change.

Weren't they immutable before Einstein as well? Seems a bit 'convenient' to say there are immutable laws but we change them all the time to fit new models.

No, we change our vague guesses at what those laws might be as and when we discover something new that contradicts our previous guesses. The ACTUAL laws, the ones that were created along with the universe itself, are immutable and unchanging (maybe, that might not actually be the case), regardless of our wooly attempts to define them (an incorrect definition of something does not cause that thing to change. Well, not unless you're the Catholic church...).

 

[steve_1979]

you just need to find another method for shifting the air.

Yes that's a good point you have there Lhc.

I wonder if it would possible to make the air vibrate by giving the air molecules an alternating positive then negative electrostatic charge of some kind?

I'm probley talking a load of rubbish here though. Physis isn't one of my strongest subjects but it's just an idea...

 

[steve_1979]

Weren't they immutable before Einstein as well? Seems a bit 'convenient' to say there are immutable laws but we change them all the time to fit new models.

That's a bit like saying Newton invented gravity. It was always there and has always been the same. Newton and later Einstein were just the first people understand how it works better and changed the 'laws' to fit appropriately.

I apologize if this sounds sarcastic. 🙂

 

[chebby]

That's a bit like saying Newton invented gravity.

He did. My Ladybird book of Physics said so. (It had a picture of it too.)

Oh yes, smiley face... 🙂

 

[manicm]

The laws of physics are most certainly mutable - this thread has turned to religion.

 

[Anonymous]

[..] speakers haven't changed very much for over a century. There's been constant improvements and evolution of technologies and materials but there hasn't been any fundemental breakthrough or change in the way they actually work.

Which is exactly where I'd be focusing my research.

You mean like this?

 

[The_Lhc]

The laws of physics are most certainly mutable

I don't think so, the universe runs on certain fixed rules, if you know how they might be changed then speak up, you'll make your fortune on the lecture circuit...

 

[Anonymous]

I wonder if it would possible to make the air vibrate by giving the air molecules an alternating positive then negative electrostatic charge of some kind?

Yes, that's possible. It's called 'thunder' - but I think we do not (yet) have the technology to do this ourselves 🙂

 

[The_Lhc]

[..] speakers haven't changed very much for over a century. There's been constant improvements and evolution of technologies and materials but there hasn't been any fundemental breakthrough or change in the way they actually work.

Which is exactly where I'd be focusing my research.

You mean like this?

No, not really, that's still using a traditional sub and tweeters, just in a slightly different sort of box.

 

[chebby]

Mankind trying to define immutable (unchangeable) laws for an ever changing and ineffable Universe.

We can't make satisfactory (let alone immutable) laws for a world that is infinitely greater than our capacity to understand it. That's just trying to get it in a box. Typical human response to the inexplicable is to make it small enough to get in a 'box'. We can then claim some control over it.

This is not anti-science, just wishing that science had a bit of humility about what it's claiming for itself and would change the vocabulary too. Every few years scientists tell us we are on the brink of understanding 'everything' ('Theories of Everything') and it is absurd and arrogant.

Wasn't it Stephen Hawking who said we could... "know the mind of God" ?

Sounds like ego to me.

 

[The_Lhc]

Mankind trying to define immutable (unchangeable) laws for an ever changing and ineffable Universe.

We can't make satisfactory (let alone immutable) laws for a world that is infinitely greater than our capacity to understand it.

So we shouldn't try? I don't want to live in that world.

That's just trying to get it in a box. Typical human response to the inexplicable is to make it small enough to get in a 'box'. We can then claim some control over it.

This is not anti-science, just wishing that science had a bit of humility about what it's claiming for itself and would change the vocabulary too.

Science has plenty of humility, talk to any astrophysicist and they'll happily admit there's far more that we don't know than that we do and that even what we think we know is quite possibly wrong.

Every few years scientists tell us we are on the brink of understanding 'everything' ('Theories of Everything') and it is absurd and arrogant.

No it isn't, there has to be a theory that governs how everything works, why shouldn't we look for it? At the moment the common perception is we're actually further away from finding it than we believed we were a few years ago.

Wasn't it Stephen Hawking who said we could... "know the mind of God" ?

Yes he did but he's changed his mind since then. That's the thing about (proper) scientists, if they find something that suggests their theories are wrong they come up with a new theory. That is the scientific method.

Sounds like ego to me.

We all suffer from it.

 

[chebby]

Science has plenty of humility, talk to any astrophysicist and they'll happily admit there's far more that we don't know than that we do and that even what we think we know is quite possibly wrong.

That doesn't seem to stop any scientist (like Richard Dawkins) telling everyone that any other 'model', used by people to understand the world, is wrong.

Even scientific 'wrongness' is better than everyone else's it seems.

"Yeah we just found out the expansion of the Universe is actually accelerating, it's all wrong and we can't explain it, and it's counter to any physical laws we have made so far. Oh, and the vast majority of the Universe is missing - according to our theories - sorry. But it's still better than what anyone else can come up with."

Anyone who has just lost the vast majority of the Universe, and can't explain it, needs to be a bit humble 🙂

 

[Anonymous]

No, not really, that's still using a traditional sub and tweeters, just in a slightly different sort of box.

point taken 🙂

We can't make satisfactory (let alone immutable) laws

I think you're confused with politics. Physics is not about making laws, they make models and theories to explain the world around us. Those models are satisfactory enough to give you microwaves, cars and the Internet. They are satisfactory enough to give you bands-on-a-platter and auditorium-in-a-box.

That doesn't seem to stop any scientist (like Richard Dawkins) telling everyone that any other 'model', used by people to understand the world, is wrong.

simple question: why should it stop him? Because other people have egos too? And your example illustrates the scientific principle pretty well: can you give me one other 'model' that actively tries to disprove itself?

 

[chebby]

I think you're confused with politics. Physics is not about making laws...

I can assure you i'm not confused. My further education was in physics, mathematics and computer science. (Although it was a long time ago!) Physics has been a subject of interest to me since I was a kid and I enjoy keeping up-to-date as an interested layman.

My objection is the arrogance of scientists in claiming that all answers, to any question, about all natural phenomena, must only come through them via the scientific method.

Take one instance. The Laws of Thermodynamics were not used in the invention or development of the steam engine. (Technology rooted in the brewing industry and gun manufacture.) The investigations leading to the Laws of Thermodynamics were inspired by steam engines.

So it doesn't always follow that scientists 'give' us a model within which technological progress occurs. Often it has to play catch-up to explain the properties of something that is already a technological reality.

The Broad Street pump episode - that led to stopping an outbreak of cholera by removing the handle from an infected water supply - happened eight years before Louis Pasteur's experiments with bacteria.

Again, science followed in the wake of a practical act.

 

[hammill]

The Broad Street pump episode - that led to stopping an outbreak of cholera by removing the handle from an infected water supply - happened eight years before Louis Pasteur's experiments with bacteria.

Again, science followed in the wake of a practical act.

How can you possibly suggest that the Broad Street Pump Episode was not an example of science in action? Dr John Snow had published a paper suggesting the theory that cholera was caused by contaminated water. He had found previous episodes that supported his theory but could not get any support from the authorities to act. Because the Broad Street pump was one source AND workers for the local brewery who only drank beer (very sensible) had not succumbed to the outbreak (amongst other pieces of evidence) Snow showed that the Cholera outbreak was caused by the contaminated water. He also observed "white, flocculent particles." in the water which he believed to be the cause of the infection. In contrast the local priest Reverend Henry Whitehead believed that it had been caused by divine intervention, and he undertook his own report on the epidemic in order to prove his point (although he did accept he was wrong. So we have a scientist with a theory who found good evidence for his theory by conducting an experiment, which proved to be correct and a priest who said God did it. Science 1 Religion 0 I reckon

 

[chebby]

Science 1 Religion 0 I reckon

I'm not keeping score for either 'side' and besides, much good science came from and continues to come from religiously devout people.

 

[The_Lhc]

I think you're confused with politics. Physics is not about making laws...

I can assure you i'm not confused. My further education was in physics, mathematics and computer science. (Although it was a long time ago!) Physics has been a subject of interest to me since I was a kid and I enjoy keeping up-to-date as an interested layman.

My objection is the arrogance of scientists in claiming that all answers, to any question, about all natural phenomena, must only come through them via the scientific method.

Take one instance. The Laws of Thermodynamics were not used in the invention or development of the steam engine. (Technology rooted in the brewing industry and gun manufacture.) The investigations leading to the Laws of Thermodynamics were inspired by steam engines.

So it doesn't always follow that scientists 'give' us a model within which technological progress occurs.

I don't think I ever said it did but only science can explain WHY the steam engine works as it does.

Often it has to play catch-up to explain the properties of something that is already a technological reality.

So what? That doesn't make science wrong and it doesn't make steam engines the work of pixies.

The Broad Street pump episode - that led to stopping an outbreak of cholera by removing the handle from an infected water supply - happened eight years before Louis Pasteur's experiments with bacteria.

Again, science followed in the wake of a practical act.

So by that notion science should stand aside and allow (for example) Creationism a free rein? I know you didn't say that but that's the implication that will be drawn by invoking Dawkins (as Creationism is his main bete noir).

If other "models" want to be taken seriously then let's see their evidence, that's not an unreasonable request and that's ALL that science asks for.

 

[Andrew Everard]

I used to love hazelnut chocolate bars, but...

 

[Anonymous]

Sigh. Consider this my last post here. I enjoy the exchange, but not the place. And I really don't understand how we got here in the first place 🙂

I think you're confused with politics. Physics is not about making laws...

I can assure you i'm not confused. My further education was in physics, mathematics and computer science. (Although it was a long time ago!) Physics has been a subject of interest to me since I was a kid and I enjoy keeping up-to-date as an interested layman.

My objection is the arrogance of scientists in claiming that all answers, to any question, about all natural phenomena, must only come through them via the scientific method.

lol, you're saying that as "must come through them in a dream" should also be valid. Then what, in your opinion, is the scientific method? Because as I've been taught, the scientific method is observation, theory, experiment, rinse, repeat. What other method are you proposing that does not ultimately revolve around "esto quod dixit" (it is because I say it is)? Remember that verifiability and repeatability is a concern, because a good scientist is trained to accept nothing at face value. That has nothing to do with hostility, snobbery, or elitism, but everything to do with reflection and self-critique.

In the case you're truly not confused, our definitions do not match. The term "law" in physics is usually used to describe natural phenomena like "an object will move if it is pushed hard enough" (my simplification of Newton's conservation of momentum). In my view, saying that Newton "made" the law is incorrect: he made a theory to describe the law and verified it with experiments. As long as the theory is not disproven, we assume that the theory is correct and hence that the "law" is fundamental. Saying that Newton made the law is as if, before Newton came along, objects would just bump into eachother and continue as they were.

Take one instance. The Laws of Thermodynamics were not used in the invention or development of the steam engine. (Technology rooted in the brewing industry and gun manufacture.) The investigations leading to the Laws of Thermodynamics were inspired by steam engines.

You don't need the laws of thermodynamics to develop a steam engine, just as you don't need to know about heat capacitance and surface tension to start a fire. You need an observation (gases exert force as they expand), a theory (gas expansion is a controllable force), and an experiment (let's see if we can control boiling water) to go from brewing to a steam engine. However, our improved understanding of those laws of thermodynamics led to the theory of adiabatic processes, which led to the refrigerator.

So it doesn't always follow that scientists 'give' us a model within which technological progress occurs. Often it has to play catch-up to explain the properties of something that is already a technological reality.

Sure, I'm not arguing otherwise. Science and technology often leap-frog eachother. But are you arguing that those engineers that pioneer the technology are not following the scientific method? Are you arguing that the people that built the LHC are not scientists because they are harnessing technology that is not yet fully described in models?

The Broad Street pump episode - that led to stopping an outbreak of cholera by removing the handle from an infected water supply - happened eight years before Louis Pasteur's experiments with bacteria.

Again, science followed in the wake of a practical act.

All science begins with observation. Maybe Pasteur read the reports on Broad Street and decided to investigate (just guessing here)? You are also misrepresenting the value of scientific research here. If the person who solved the BS episode wrote down his experiences, and maybe did some tests, we would not be remembering Pasteur at all -- we would remember him instead.

(edit: I see he did write it down, and we do know his name. Thanks Hammill!)

 

[chebby]

I used to love hazelnut chocolate bars, but...

...you went off Topic?