Physics is Political

It has been demonstrated that, in the world of quantum physics, the act of observation affects reality.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm

So the closing statement of the initial post may be more correct than originally intended.  At some level, anyway.

That being said, asking for a topic to stop in one thread doesn't mean that it can continue in another.  Let's move on.  Unless, of course, anyone wants to discuss the article to which I linked.

I'll Take You Up on That

Artisan offered the opportunity to comment on his link.

"By the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality."

Yes, I experimented with this starting in the 1970s. When observing a situation low frequency brain waves are transferred through the earth's resonance to the object being observed which receives the waves at the subliminal level.

This sometimes alerts a woman that a man is "leering" or that he is interested, which sometimes leads to marriage.

Does any of this have anything to do with legal low-power radio?

Do you really have to wonder why members are bailing?

I scanned the article and noted that it is not a good description of the current theories of quantum actions and then noted it was published in 1998.

The best way I have found in my attempts to understand this subject is to view it in terms of probabilities, as suggested by Richard Feynman.  At the quantum level reality exists in a state of superposition meaning in more than one state at a time.  For example, toss a coin.  While in the air it is in a state of neither head nor tails but both.  When it lands on the table it is now one or the other and no longer both.

A statement that the observer influences the outcome is false, yet an observer does affect an outcome by forcing nature to make a choice.  You cannot force a head or a tail, you only know the outcome as an observer after the event is observed so all that was done is nature was forced by the observation to make a choice.

The math of the probabilities of the "two slit" experiment mentioned in the article is really simple.  It boils down to something like the difference between (A and B) squared or A squared plus B squared.  In the first term a factor of 2AB appears where in the second it does not.  This term is the interference observed.  If one observes which hole the electron traverses then A squared plus B squared applies and there is no interference.  If one does not observe which hole is traversed the the (A and B) squared applies and there is interference when the observation is made of the screen.

The mystery remains as to why nature does this but we can explain what we observe with probabilities and experiments such as the Aspect experiment using Bell's inequality and it doesn't involve prayer or subliminal waves.  If you would like to dig into some really strange (to us humans but not to nature) stuff, pursue Einstein's spooky action at a distance.

Here's another more up to date article, linking human consciousness and quantum physics.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170215-the-strange-link-between-the-human-mind-and-quantum-physics

Interesting stuff, and I don't think probability explains everything (Feynman himself died in 1988).

As to what this has to do with low power radio, well, everything.  Physics underpins radio, quantum physics underpins classical physics and who knows what underpins quantum physics.

Surely this topic has far more to do with low power radio than discussing classic TV actors that have recently passed away, WKRP DVD's, or endlessly warning about computer security, as another site has a want to do.

There is only so much you can talk about ground leads, or field strength, or rules.

And I don't want to give members here the impression that people are leaving this site, or any other site for that matter (no matter what differences I might have with them).  Some tried and true participants here are taking sabbaticals, it is true.  But different people are posting, which is great.  We generally get at least one new member per day - most lurk, which is normal, and there are some spammers (the fact that you rarely see their posts is a testament to the spam blocking).

Every Forum goes through active periods and then not so active periods.  Maybe instead of being critical, billyburg (and others who may feel the same way) can post some new and exciting thoughts and material.

Artie, by logical extension, I could start a thread on Dinosaur Sex and successfully tie it to low-power radio: dinosaurs having sex created more dinosaurs which led to even more dinosaurs. Eons after extinction, those dead dinos became oil, which led to the development of plastics. And we all know you cant have electronics without plastic insulators, cases, knobs, the coatings on wires, etc.  And without electronics, no radio. No radio, no low power radio. All because of Dinosaur Sex.   Q.E.D.

As for the gang in the other radio clubhouse listing dead actors, DVDs etc, it is known as content -- interesting things to share with an audience. There are a lot of operators simply connecting a computer to a transmitter and calling it "radio", but there is a large community of operators that want to be live and local. Content is King and Local wins every time.

I lurk on a lot of technical and broadcast sites and contribute anonymously to many of them. I get useful information from all of them, but selectively. No one site has it all. I'll step back from this discussion as it irrelevant to my needs and I am not schooled in the finer details of the discipline. But how does physics -- as rabidly discussed in this particular thread -- make any of us better broadcasters or make our stations operate better?

BillyBurg,

Nice!

But as constrained by request, my contribution was limited as seen.

Neil

You Said It Yourself

BillyBurg said: "It is known as content — interesting things to share with an audience. There are a lot of operators simply connecting a computer to a transmitter and calling it “radio”, but there is a large community of operators that want to be live and local. Content is King and Local wins every time."

You are 100% correct on this point, and the discussion on physics qualifies as content for any radio announcer who chooses to tell his audience about it.

Or, sometimes physics is related to electronics and the theory of antenna performance and stuff.

To paraphrase your own words, billyburg, the discussion on physics here is CONTENT, and in my opinion is more on topic with radio than dead TV stars.  You may feel otherwise.

As our compatriot Carl has pointed out in the past, radio touches reality in many more areas than mere genre-based music programming.

What I don't understand is the compunction of those who may not like certain topics or posts to feel that their viewpoints are somehow more important than others.

This is not the other Forum, where what the webmaster/owner/operator decides is on topic or of interest automatically becomes that (with dissenters tossed out).   Here, we are all relatively equal.  Many of us have different interests, and different reasons for dropping in.  The Moderators are volunteers who unselfishly give up their time and energy in an attempt to keep things on an even keel, but they have no axe to grind, no site to promote, no ego to satisfy.

If you don't like something, don't read it.

I'm glad that you still feel that you get something out of this site.

If there are things that you feel aren't being discussed, or you want to see more of, then you're welcome to promote a discussion yourself.

At the end of the day, it ain't all about you, or me, or anyone else.  In my opinion, if this site, and hobby (and radio in general) is going to survive, we're going to have to learn some tolerance.

It All Depends on Which Reality is the Real One

Wear seat belts for this one.

Dizziness Guaranteed