AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Richard D Pierce) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Radium wrote:
Record a sound at 10^-500 of an attobel in mono into an optical (using
lasers) device. Convert the analog optical
signal to digital optical PCM channel (still mono). This digital PCM
signal
should remain mono and should have a sampling rate of 10^500 samples
every attosecond, and a bit-resolution of 10^1,000-gigabit. This
high-quality mono PCM signal should be split into 100^10,000 different
audio channels, this will reduce the loudness immeasureably. This
100^10,000 channelled, 10^500 sampled per attosecond, 10^1,000 gigabit
PCM audio should be amplified from 10^-500 of an attobel to 20
decibels.
Remember that this a purely optical device using UV lasers for the
purposes of A-D conversion, D-A conversion, recording, playback,
storage, transmission, reception, and processing of sound.

What will the recording sound like when played back?

Okay, first, you have some confusion with units. 10^-500
attobels is almost exactly equal to 0 attobels. If you mean
something which is 10^500 times smaller than an attobel, well,
that's -500 attobels.

Yes.

Beyond that, you are FAR below the level at which quantum
uncertainty completely dominates. That has pretty serious
implications on your gedanken.

For example, if you're talking about such miniscule sound
pressure level variations, you're talking about detecting
displacements that are far smaller than the constituents of the
atomic nucleus. Describing such phenomenon in the context of
sound, which is a manifestation at the macro level, is
essentially meaningless. Further, the very techniques you are
wanting to use to measure these things, lasers and such, are
GROSSLY inadequate to the task.

Even when digital?

Uncertainty itself prevents you from even getting there. You
want to measure phenomenon of VERY low energy over VERY small
distances: that means you want extremely high certainty of both
position and momentum, whicb is simply forbidden by uncertainty.
Tou measure things over small distances, uncertainty requires
very high uncertainty in momentum, which means very high energy,
and vice versa.

Another significant stumbling block: the simple thermal energy
of air alone generates a sound pressure whose broadband
equivalent noise level is not very much below the threshold of
hearing, so simple thermal agitation itself will TOTALLY
overwhelm anything at the levels your are contemplating. Assume
you are trying to see what's going on at one attobel, or -340
decibels: the thermal noise is somehwre in the realm of 320 dB
higher. Assume you want to divide, as you say, into many
individual channels (I assume you mean frequency bins), you are
bitten again by the uncertainty principle (this time the
time-frequency uncertainty).

No. Channels are the available different locations of the audio
signal.

That is:

1 channel = mono

2 channels = stereo

Divide the audio spectrum (20 kHz)
into a google channels (10^100): the response time of each
channel is now 10^100/20,000 or 5*10^95 seconds, much longer
than the age of the universe (estimated at about 10^18 seconds),
much longer than GUT estimates of the half life of protons
(10^28 seconds) and, if GUT theories are correct, much longer
than ordinary matter will exist and thus the projected age of
the universe.

So, by the time half of the mass of the universe had decayed,
you'd have NO signal coming out of your analyzer yet.

What would it sound like we COULD? Well, that much we know:
noise. Ordinary noise with gaussian distribution. We'd be
listening to the simple noise of air due to random impacts of
air molecules against the detector due to thermal agitation at a
level that is 340 dB higher than what you'r looking for.

Shouldn't digital audio with a sufficiently strong bit-resolution and
high sampling rate have natural protection against noise?