[LightFire]

Oops. Forgot to say:

My RCA cables would be made of platinum and full of bells and whistles everywhere. Perhaps real bells and whistles. It would be easy for me to convince you guys that they would actually improve the sound.

[gitarretyp]

Just for the record on quantum physics. Scientists are still trying to understand why things that occur in the quantum (subatomic) level DO NOT affect our own reality. Things that occur in the quantum level contradict laws of physics that occur on our level. However both "worlds" exist. We know it for a fact. But the "quantum world" does not affect "our macroscopic world."

Much of what's said above is not accurate and is the standard drivel i see espoused by people that think they understand quantum mechanics (read, not physicists).

Things on the quantum level do very much effect our world (for instance your vision and ability to touch things are transmitted by quantum level properties), but their effect is through averages and expectation values. Things that occur on the quantum level do not contradict macroscopic physics in any way. If they did, nobody would believe quantum mechanics.

Feel free to give some examples of contradictions or ways in which this quantum world you speak of is disconnected from the macroscopic world, because i can't think of any.

[gitarretyp]

Sorry if the above seems combative. I just watched "what the bleep do we know" (well, as much of it as i could stand) last night and it left me seething regarding these topics.

[Rob Babcock]

To the best of my limited understanding, Conservation of Matter & Energy is one such principle.  On the macro scale, it seems to be an inviolable fact that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, but we do encounter both arising out of "thin air" on the quantum level.  Obviously both "worlds" are linked in some fashion, but since no one has a GUT yet we can't say just how.

FWIW, I whimsically invoke Chaos Theory, Heidleberg's Uncertainly Principle and Quantum Mechanics as potential evidence of human free will.  After all, if there is such a thing as true randomness in the universe then you can't truly say all actions we take are pre-scripted.  The fact that this relies on the behavior of the universe at the micro level while we exist on the macro level is conveniently overlooked by me.  

[gitarretyp]

To the best of my limited understanding, Conservation of Matter & Energy is one such principle.  On the macro scale, it seems to be an inviolable fact that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed, but we do encounter both arising out of "thin air" on the quantum level.  Obviously both "worlds" are linked in some fashion, but since no one has a GUT yet we can't say just how.

FWIW, I whimsically invoke Chaos Theory, Heidleberg's Uncertainly Principle and Quantum Mechanics as potential evidenc ...

Nope, there's no contradiction there, though many philosophers and people that don't understand physics believe otherwise and espouse otherwise.

Energy is conserved in quantum mechanics (QM), it's just a bit more subtle. What you're referring to is the energy-time version of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, \Delta E \Delta t > \h_bar / 2 ~ 10^(-34) J*s (for comparision, it requires about 10 J to list a 1kg brick 1 meter). All this says is that the precision to which we can know the energy is limited by the time over which we observe the system. This principle, as do all QM principles, apply to macroscopic objects. It's just that the variances in the quantities are so much smaller than the average (or expected) values that the variance is completely washed away.

Another way of looking at the energy-time uncertainty principle is the following: In QM, the energy of a particle of system is defined by expectation values, the average over many possible states. All the uncertainty principle really states is that the expectation value is not exact but can vary.

[Rob Babcock]

Energy is ultimately conserved, but in a maddening way- a partical can arise from complete vacuum provided it's very short lived and the equation is quickly balanced.  Like embezzling money from your company to pay a loan shark but winning it back before it's missed.  It sorta violates the trust we like to place in our Oh So Real Real World.

Does that mean you believe in free will?

[Folsom]

It is all in your mind. Why don;t you try some kind of blind test and see if you can get the same results.

Funny I did not know the Bel-Canto was moved out of the system the next time I heard it, and it sounded better with the same music...

Trust me the difference is so big even Bel-Canto says not to judge their equipment until burned in.

[Rob Babcock]

If I was a manufacturer, I'd strongly recommend proper burn-in, too.  Something in the range of, oh, about 20,000 hours.