Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Re: improv + looping in Jungian analysis



The basic quantum mechanics wave equation and Maxwell's Equations both 
have different derivatives of the wave on each
 side of the equation, so this is the "source" of feedback and 
oscillation.  Quantum electrodynamics, the combination of the two, 
does the same. I don't know string theory either but I would venture to 
guess that this concept is so fundamental that it is hard to 
avoid in descriptions of the Universe.

It has been many years of EE'ing since my Bachelors in Physics!


> As EE and looper I tend to believe that there is no oszilation
> without feedback.
> I dont know how the tiny parts guys think about it.
> What is it really that keeps everithing vibrating? :-)

prime mover?
big bang?

quantum mechanics says: heat and chance.

i am only vaguely familiar with string theory,
but these guys think all matter is energy oscilating in
tiny loops. i agree that fundamentally there must
be a feedback occurring down there.

> >Hey speaking
> >of which isn't sound-art one of the only four-dimensional art forms 
>since
> >the waveforms can be three-dimensional and change through time...
>
> Well, in the usual graphic, the axis of the spiral would be time, and
> we assume that the oscilation of the other two axis moves "upwards"
> or foreward in evolution. This is just a model or symbol.
> If you animate the graphic, you win a dimension, but it changes its
> look, since you watch time as time and the third dimension is a
> further oscilation. Can you creat this illusion on a 2d screen? It
> might turn into a growing ball.

wouldn't this just look like a waveform display?
if the object were a regular spiral it would be a sin wave...


> Not at all, this list was never meant as a gear list!
> Discussion of functions and necessary equipment is a result of a
> desire and fascination we have for the non material side of
> repetition, no?
> As you just proved, the hardware is not necessary to get involved.

are you guys SURE you don't want to talk about gear?