Upper frequency response - Quantum Physics experiment?

Harmonics are 'higher than'. Any lower effects would be movement in intermodulation distortion.

this is hopefully at least a little related.
it is a video of how different frequencies are sensed at different places in our ears. I think specifically on a thing called the basilar membranes, in our cochleas.



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilar_membrane

this last link, is a picture showing the frequency values along the basilar membranes length:

www.britannica.com/science/basilar-membrane

OK, i try to use a more easily metaphoric explanation for what quantum entanglement is.
If you have a wall with two fine slits you send light from a single source, to have a coherence in phase, thru it from one side, use a screen on the other side of the wall. If the slits have more distance to each other, than the wave's length, you can see an interference pattern that 1802 already has been used to show, that light behaves like waves e.g. in the water (Young). It is called "diffraction of double slits experiment" (don't know if this is the english phrase also.
It also shows, that the waves still share same states despite the facts that they went different ways thru diffenrent slits, hence the light and dark interference pattern that is visible if you use monochromatic light.
This is actually fairly easy to understand, if you think of it like waves in the water. Huygens did this long ago, and changed the view on the nature of light.
Now, back to 1802. Young wanted the experiment he made to proof that light behaves like a wave and not a particle ("corpuscle"). These were competing theories 200 yrs. ago.
In the meantime we know that light behaves like a wave AND a particle (photon) at the same time.

How is this old stuff useful for explanation of quantum entanglement?
Because if light/waves share same states despite they travelled different ways (the light parts of the interference pattern), and we know that light shares behaviour of a wave AND a particle equally, this is how we can visualize how the particles also share same states, no matter if they travelled different ways. They share the same information without beeing at the same place, in absolute synchronicity. (Phase, polarity)
Einstein postulated, that the influence of particles on each other in a system in different locations has something to do with "hidden variables". Niels Bohr disagreed on this theory.
In the sixties Bell found, that there actually is a measurable difference in the contradictory views of Einstein and Bohr, and actually the theory of the hidden parameters lost against the theory of the non-locality of the coherence of "entangled" states which got hard evidence in repeatable experiments. This is talking about light.
Yupp. And this is the easiest way i can explain it.
And now, if anyone can tell me what audio has to do with quantum physics effects, quantum entanglement etc., i would be very interested.

svart: My father actually never believed in Einsteins relativity theories and thought they are just weird ideas of human thinking that have nothing to do with the real world.
In fact, reality always is what our interpretation of perception is. No 2 persons live in the same reality, except for the moments when they share information.
Therefore science also is only the art of thinking that lets you make predictions or assertions about unpredictable about what happens next.
The real world, stars far away or quantum states, don't give a shit about human perception.
The task of science is to explain the real world in the most useful and universal way striving towards more knowledge - in the knowledge that this CAN never be complete.
If we see a star, no one of us has any idea, if this star actually even exists, because it's light already travelled for many many years. You can make absolutely no reasonable assumption about it. But since nothing travels faster than light it is absolutely irrelevant, for us on earth the existance of the star is totally meaningless. Everything that can have any influence of the star on us can not reach us faster than the light. So the star exists in human reality. Practically, not theoretically. In the most real sense of reality that we have.
The unpredictability of the existence of the star in terms of synchronicity is one of the open questions that come up with the answer to the question what the fastest speed is, that light, matter etc. can travel.
Quantum physics took the extra mile and found information synchronicity to be a concept that *seemingly* contradicts Einstein. "God does not roll the dice." In the end he has to admit he does. (Well, i an ab atheist, so i never hat a dogmatic problem with Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger and all these guys...there is a reason most scientists of today tend to think atheistic or agnostic. It makes science so much easier if you put religion or god out of your equations.)
Western civilization science was clear about each answer opening up more than one question, since the very beginning.
The more you know, the more you are aware how incomplete your knowledge is. That's why the easy world of uneducated or actually stupid people can lead to more happiness. You have more self confidence and feel more important, because you know LESS about the world....
In fact, Einstein is as real in defined range, as is Newton or quantum mechanics. It is in harmony except very special condition, in case of quantum physics it is assumptions about states and localization in sub atomic dimensions of the world.
I am pretty sure the time you get something like a "quantum computer" or whatever technology makes good use of quantum physics, your interest into it will rise steeply. I mean - you are the very reasonable type of engineer from all i read from you.
;-)

No insult intended towards anyone and best regards.
<dances the "please don't feel insulted" dance>

Then why is it that scans of brain activity during listening show quite marked differenced between listening to a recording bandwidth limited to around 20K compared to the same recording with bandwidth out to around 50K or better? The subjects were not conciously aware of a difference in tonality, but their brains clearly reacted to the higher frequency content.

And yeah, "quantum" has become a buzzword used by people who have absolutely no idea what it really means to impress gullible people with fancy pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo...

It's possible that I was misled by a rehash of that experiment, but I'm pretty sure I saw a more recent report on the subject somewhere, wish I could remember where it was.

And yeah, I agree about time. The important thing is to keep an open mind and not get caught up in dogma.

And yes, it is pretty much possible you read about a more actual study. As in all interesting fields that are controversially discussed, science automatically starts peer reviews and other researchers try to confirm or disprove unclear scientific assertions based on experimental studies. Last time i read about this, many questions were unclear and only vaguely commented. And quite some studies could not repeat this successfully or came to different results in somehow similar research...

Erm, that article doesn't actually say anything.

And one thing it does say (without actually saying anything substantial) is that this "new theory" depends at least partly on "quantum".

Quantum, by the way, primarily refers to the "quantum leap", which is the abrupt jump in energy levels between the electron "rings" of an atom.... (which is a proven fact.)

Except that the article doesn't actually SAY anything that would indicate that it does except that is "says so", which isn't proof, or even scientific hypothesis. The article is a fluff piece.

I would welcome something of substance on the subject but this ain't it. And I have nothing against plugging in values for variables in equations - isn't that how math works? In many advanced theories of cosmology it is hypothesized that there may be a multitude of universes which have differing physical laws. We are in the one we're in because it is friendly to our form of existence - but there could be others, based on different figures plugged into the equations as constants.

What I'd like to see is something that disproves dark energy - the idea of an open universe even tually devolving intoi isolated, disjoiunted fragments bothers me. Dark matter doesn't bother me at all - and there's significant data that indicates that it's true, or at least probable. The article says nothing that would indicate the opposisite,. except that it says that it says so, which smacks of religious circular "logic".

I'm sorry, I don't accept any argument that someone is right just because they say they are.

As of the article, i read in september an article in the most serious german science magazine "Bild der Wissenschaft", that interpreted the first serious results of LIGO-Detector, which could find for a second time gravitational waves, in a totally different way.
The gravitational waves origined from a collision of 2 black holes in 14.2 light years of distance an. It is a strong evidence for the existence of many black holes in universe...quite interesting.

But what about Verlindes theory of gravitation that totally renders Einstein and Newton wrong due to the fact, that the strength of gravitation is totally different in his theory, that way, that gravitation looses much less strength in distance?
The ONLY thing that speaks for Verlindes theory is, that it can explain one phenomenon with less parameters than Einstein's relativity theory and explanation of gravitation.
And this is not enough,the mentioned difference is a very big flaw in his theory. Leading string theory scientists like Motl named Verlindes theory "a work on the level of an intermediate diploma". Explicitly the linked article of the New Scientist has been heavily criticized. Especially the mentioning of the MOND-creator Milgrom is not very interesting. Verlindes work depends on Milgroms theory. And even Milgrom is not overly enthusiastic, although he is not as critical as most of the top physicists. Who see Verlindes work as kind of a para-scientific sacriledge, for a simple reason...
Newton's and Einstein's gravitational theories have been independently peer-reviewed and countless times experimentally verified. for more than a century. Verlindes idea and resulting conclusions sound quite like a bit of too big for his britches...
No way Newton or Einstein are "just theories" that could be proven wrong by somebody who explains *one* phenomenon with a simpler mathematical model with less parameters.
In fact. and that is probably what led to the intermediate diploma mockery, the parametrical fitting of mathematical models for explanation of natural phenomena by no way is wrong in any way, it is a totally common practice in physics generally as of all i remember from my time of studying physics at university. (And not only in "higher" or "advanced" physics) So most experts don't spend too much attention to this very controversial work of Verlinde. For a reason....
IT was even hard to find a reference to the New Scientist article in Germany at all. I found it in a medium for "anomalistics, borderline sciences and para sciences"...
Oh,well...

Isn't "medical scientist" an oxymoron?
;-)

Well, as i said before - time always shows up what fits better.
Of course engineers always have to use already stuff, that is far from beeing actually proven by evidence.
Physicists do the same - regarding math. (Using advanced mathematic procedures based on unproven theories.)
If it's working, use it.
Problems when two theories contradict each other will always sort out themselves. The one that actually does not work is of no use in real world application in the long term. Most of the time it is just a matter of time.
Einstein needed 2 decades to accept that "god rolls the dice" (quantum mechanics). But he did.
In this case here, the new theory would conclude that gravitation works totally different than we all thought it works, but seems mathematically more "elegant".
Most probably it may need a bit of time to falsify it. Sometimes things need around a hundred yrs. to get proof by evidence. There have been quite some astronomical observations that look like very solid proofs of Einsteins gravity and make sense with previously unproven commonly accepted advanced physics, and i really doubt the new theory fits there.
Most of those of the last time, i guess mostly in this millenium, have been made with observation from satellites, which makes it possible to observe phenomena that can not be seen on earth.
This makes it very exciting. 2004 there were observations of light, that lead to very plausible explanation of the nature (small size) of neutron stars, if deformation of space/time according to Einstein gravity is taken into account. Just an example, that comes to my mind.
And oh yes, there is a lot going on in regards of narcism, as soon as you step on a part of a university campus. :-D
This is certainly right and part of the reason why i left university and went on to engineering and later IT and system analysis and a couple other things. I am very interested in science, but much less in academic life and airs and graces and had a serious problem with authority at university. LOL.
Most probably i do enjoy science discussions on this board, because they are quite polite and there is always something to learn, i am quite sure i would have never read something of this parameterless theory about dark matter... (Academic folks can be very childish, mean and/or show clear signs of social incompetence, especially in the harder sciences. At least in my experience. :-D )
And most of the time we can let different points of view stand there and go on in our strive for good sound and our love for music and tech. Without any need to reach a coincident of opinion. This is something i love about this forum.
Btw. - I hope you all had a happy and peaceful christmas, with family, friends or whoever was with you.

Because it was mentioned...
The great theories of science that change the way we see things are in nearly all cases those, that do not render the previous ones useless, but work in ranges that supercede their predecessors. This doesn't mean there is no faulty science - there is a lot of them.
So, sure we use Newton still to explain everyday mechanics, and it is awfully useful to understand motion the way Newton did. No matter how old this view of things is. It is a simplified model of all mechanics that is perfectly usable in the context of human's directly explorable environment. And Einstein does not change this at all and never intended to.
Very controversely discussed theories imply huge changes and often directly contradict previously used models of how we see nature. In the field of paraphysics or parascience or esoterics this is a very common practice. Here in Germany, e.g. the theory of "homeopathy" was developed and feeds a whole industry that relies on it. And our health minister declared homeopathic pills to be "medicine" in the sense of our German drug laws. That is, what lobbies can do - bringing politicians to the point, where they contradict elementary science, completely incompatible to everything we know about the laws of nature in the fields of physics and chemistry.
I had medical doctors that i thought were reasonable people that at some point started to talk me into homeopathic or other "alternative" medicine. Shocking for me, because i can not trust somebody who denies the fundamental laws of chemistry and at the same time prescribes "real" medicine. From my perspective, this is dangerous, at least...
And this is not rare at all, a lot of germans fiercly defend the use of homeopathic products with always the same false information and invalid studies that in all cases where they have been reproduced showed that there is no other effect than the placebo effect and the "evidence" came from manipulation of data or systematical errors.
Therefore my sarcasm regarding medical science...
A bit similar to american phenomena of the fundamental religious lobbies that lead to politicians denying evolution and even politicians who really should know better act and talk like there is an "alternative" history of this planet that is equal to evolution.
In my opinion we reached a point in history, where there is a very obvious stagnation of education in bigger parts of the population of our countries, while on the other hand the avantgarde of serious science is not made understandable for the public and stays there as a kind of magic black box for the average joe. There is an advancing education gap, that in IMHO is in direct relation to an advancing income gap, advancing poverty in the lower income groups and a shift to the right in politics in all industrialised countries with also a new conservativism and religious explanations taking over...
Kind of scares me for the future....