|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
In reply to:
BTW, '-on' is just an ending to indicate a singularity, a thing, a noun. The '-ino' ending just means 'a small thing' as far as I know.
thank you, bell.
yes, a "b" section! just what everything needs once in a while. or at least a phrase with a different number of measures. When I listen to Philip Glass or Steve Reich, or better yet, John Adams, I enjoy the subtle transitions and developments of the idea. a b-section doesn't need to be abrupt.
here's to good form!
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055
old hand
|
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 1,055 |
That's to the best of my knowledge. Don't quote me.
I know P. Glass and S. Reich quite well, but J. Adams not so. What should I listen to by him?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,210 |
this is my favorite: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00002473K/qid=1026209224/sr=1-47/ref=sr_1_47/103-4281073-7075856(sorry for the long url...) because of budget(!), I don't know as much of his stuff as I'd like... "Nixon in China" is fairly well-known, as is "Short Ride in a Fast Car". he's much more melodically based than Glass or Reich; and has taken Minimalism in the direction I think it ought to go, as a tool, rather than the whole package. let me know what you think.
formerly known as etaoin...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Knowing a little something on this subject (I like to read popularizations of theoretical physics) I can tell you that physicists would love to make it simple (as the Fermi quote in a post below indicates). They want a Grand Unified Theory (GUT). Nature has its own ideas, though.
Many things are based on energy conservation and symmetry - nature loves symmetry. Nature makes and breaks symmetry in all kinds of places (complexity theory delves into this extensively). Subatomic theory predicted that, for certain high-energy collisions to make sense, there had to be very short-lived, supermassive particles (many of the particles mentioned have lives so short that a computer cycle on an Itanium 2 is an eternity). That doesn't make them "theoretical" though - they are real.
(Aside: the sqrt -1 is not "unreal" - it is "imaginary" by naming convention but it is as real as a rock. Without it, there would be no radio, computers, TV's or even AC current.)
Bosons have been proven. Recently, all 6 quarks (strange, charm, colored etc.) were proven. They had 5 and were looking for the 6th to fulfill theoretical/symmetrical demands. It took some serious high-energy physics to find it, but they did. Many of these so-called "theoretical" particles are not "unreal" but they may be "virtual". The problem is that virtual particles are often counterparts of "visible/tangible" particles, with whom they combine in tiny multiples of Planck times to form other particles. This makes them extremely difficult to "prove" but are absolutely necessary, otherwise we have to assume that energy is created or destroyed in some reactions (this is the way the neutrino was first theorized). Since conservation of energy has served so long and so well, scientists are quite loathe to dispense with it until there are no other avenues of investigation. And we are a long, long way from having no other avenues of investigation.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 1,346 |
the sqrt -1 is not "unreal" - it is "imaginary" by naming convention but it is as real as a rockYes, it belatedlty occurred to me that there probably had been some usefulness found in j, Bryan, so actually I was talking through my hat a bit there. Many of these so-called "theoretical" particles are not "unreal" but they may be "virtual".But does their existence always get proven eventually? And if not, do they get "uninvented"? I'd imagine there must be cases where what was once considered to be a (theoretical) single entity is actually identified as a composite that overlaps with neighbouring particles/wavicles or whatever. I suppose we're taking issue a bit with what looks like indulgent and perhaps excessive "advance terminology". But I'm happy to admit talking from a position of almost complete ignorance. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69 |
Of course, there are always some particles that are invented but never mentioned because the theory is disproven(or the term is perhaps recycled into another theory that *is* proven). Chances are, we'll never hear about them unless we really dig for some old science papers. ;-)
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
Cheers,
Bryan
You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,915
Posts229,892
Members9,197
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
365
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
