Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
Ok, of course i didn't studied it officialy and don't understand a lot of stuff, specially it's deeper underlying math (like Richard Feynmann said, "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics."), i'm just hobbyist interested in physics and particulary QM and relativity and studying it for myself for years ...
I mean by watching and reading various university lectures, trying undersrand a bit more than just overall knowledge (if anybody wants to go a bit deeper than just thise funny videos, i'm suggesting great Leonard Susskind Standford lectures about QM, Strings theory and relativity on youtube) ...
Sorry for my a bit offensive reactions to Max23 but i'm oversensitive when somebody is writing true nonsense (i mean his statements about sound and what it is - that is not even quantum physic, that is probably elementary school physics, or high school best - depends on region)..
but ok, i will hold back myself... just simply can't stand ignorance.. as i said,i will not do any reply to his posts, sorry (that is my excuse tomyou, for polluting this thread)
@dendy, just continue to say what you think about the subject.
I am no stranger to being combative or arrogant. It is hard to control one's feelings. But your points are all well taken. They speak for themselves. I hope you will continue to contribute.
ok back to physics... as i mentioned, for those who wants to go deeper... higgs boson for exemple is another interesting topic, there was lot of rumours in mainstream media when it was discovered (god particle which gives mass to everything and similiar fairytales
this is another good example how sometimes scientific facts can be a bit distorted or misinterpreted, when they are too much oversimplified
here is Leonard Susskind lecture about this topic with deep explanation of higgs mechanism, what it is and what it is not..
hint: higgs boson itself doesn't give mass to anything, and even without higgs mechanism some particles would be not massless
The universe is truly strange as is its mechanics.
We live in the middle world, not subatomic and not cosmic. How things actually work we might never know due to many factors such as, our brains being only able to directly perceive 3 spatial dimensions and one time, and some would say that time is an emergent property, and some would say only part of and due to the limits of our perception.
As far as perception goes... the map is not the terrain. That is the stimulus we respond to and record, theorize about, make models of – map – is not the reality of the 'thing' no matter how comprehensive. (Try and make a map of a coastline – see fractals)
For ages it seemed apparent that the earth was the center of the universe and everything orbited around it. I'm speaking specifically of European 'science' which during this period was mostly under the purview of the Catholic Church. Suffice it to say they had an investment in that particular model to reinforce their control and to reinforce their version (map/model) of reality. Their version of reality seemed so common sense, until finer measurements and abnormalities crept in. In order to fix the orbits periodicity of circular paths in fixed crystalline spheres smaller circles were added which had their own size and number fine tuned to match the observations. It was inelegant and cumbersome and required constant adjustment and more and more epicycles.
Long story short Copernicus inverted the model and put the sun at the center of the solar system. It solved all the complexities of the old model and was more accurate and needed no tending. Except Mercury whose aberrant orbit wasn't solved until Einstein and well after Newtonian Physics had holes punched in it.
( https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/26408/what-did-general-relativity-clarify-about-mercury )
@dendy You are correct sir, in that language matters because the concepts are slippery to common everyday comprehension and that math is one of the only ways to symbolize (map) what we observe to a model.
@Max23 You are correct sir, we synthesize our sensory input into reality. Some would say we hallucinate reality.
The point is there does exist a measurable reality outside of our experience which DOES NOT wink in and out of existence depending on an observer perceiving it, to which we put labels and attributes on in order for us to function in a material world. Our pattern seeking minds have served us well but we MUST not get stuck in dogma or in woo and be careful of definitions, assumptions, and language.
(see Nietzsche for being against dogma
see Gödel for discussions on incompleteness of formal systems)
Peace all
@audiblevideo wise words man ! respect !
So the Universe by default or design became self aware, I’m off to navel gaze.
This comment interests me. I don’t understand the logic behind it. How can you say that buildings don’t dissapear just because nobody is watching? How can you say that it exists even though not observed? Is there a principle behind this statement, or just an assumption because it is too hard to fit the concept at a macroscopic level to your perception of reality?
It’s a sincere question, not a disagreement. I am trying to understand if there’s a piece of thinking in this regard that supports this statement. It would be somewhat comforting if there were.
@dendy is not alone, in this regard, Einstein suffered similarly contemplating the existence our satellite.
Why it should disappear at all ? :-) Occam's razor :-)
This is quite simple. There was not observed, not experimentaly proved, or at least theoretically predicted any physical process which should lead to disappearing of macroscopic objects like car, house, or tree, just because there is not "observer"..
Actually it would be in strong contradiction with all existing theories whose are pretty accurately describing everything around us. (as i mentioned above, theory is not just something random and unprovable, check wiki link i pasted above, scientific theory is very serious thing)
It would literally put all modern science to knees and woukd cause need of overwrite all books.
Not saying it is impossible, But it is highly unlikely. Like 1:(more than all particles in whole universe)
So, until someone doesn't prove experimentally
or by observation (which is obviously little bit complicated :-)) that without observarion macroscopic objects disappers, it is just subject for philosophic (or new age mystic, which is often same thing) speculations, and based on all other proved theories they do not disappears.
On other side, there is lot of real laboratory experiments (and real nature observations), which without any doubt proved that things like quantum entanglement, superposition, wavefunctiom collapse caused by measurement, virtual particles which appears from nothing and then again disappears - those things are very real in subatomic world, they are not just theoretical constructs - alhough they are VERY unintuitive, from some reason this is how this world works at smallest scales.
That's also why there exists biggest puzzle of modern science - we have two main theories, every one pretty much accurarely describes our universe - QM on atomic and subatomic scale, and General relativity at cosmologic scale - problem is that those two theories are in total
contradiction :-) Which doesn't mean they're wrong - no, they both are correct..
just obviously they both are just special cases derived from some deeper theory.
Hunt for this "theory o everything" is holy grail
of modern science, to merge together QM and General relativity is dream for all scientists.
Back to "observer".
Whole topic of "observer" emerged from missinterpretstion and misunderstanding of measurement in quantum physics. Some people heard that certain properties of subatomic particles (like spin) are not defined by exact value but exists just as wave of probabilities (or in more stages at once), until you don't measure it. They also did hear that act of measurement is affecting measured system - there is nothing mystical behind this, just very exact physical principles.
Problem is, that those people extrapolated QM world rukes to macroscopic world, added a bit of new age mysticism, a bit of philosophy - and voila.. speculations about disappearing trees, houses, cars when nobody is watching are there :-)
I think it's important to clarify what an observer is. In terms of the scientific debate an observer can be considered that which communicates -- passes knowledge of its state to another. For particles this can be momentum, position, spin, charge, and more esoteric things like color. At such a level there are rules to which apply to these properties. When particles are entangled they share information about their state(s). Without such communication we wouldn't have larger atomic structures above elementary particles.
The words knowledge, information and communication can be misleading as well. Just think of states that are related, conjugate, or having exclusivity in how they behave or can be combined.
In large assemblies of matter entanglement gives coherence to form in both the common and scientific sense of the word. As such things larger than elementary particles don't blink in and out of existence.
On the subatomic level though, interestingly enough, particles of any type and energy level can be spawned as long as their opposite is generated and they both disappear in a time in proportion to their energy level. (see Casimir effect, zero point energy AKA vacuum energy )
The universe is 'observing itself' all the time. Things communicate all the time. One of the only limits to communication is the speed of light – which is more correctly about the speed of causality. No information (state sharing) is shared faster than the speed of light, so that things that are outside of each others light cone can never effect each other.
Part of that comes into debate when you consider Einstein and Bohr and "spooky action at a distance" as previous videos in this thread talk about. To my estimation this incongruity is part of our incompleteness of our models but does negate the fact that macroscopic things do not blink in an out of existence.
Hope that makes sense.
@dendy, thanks for the detailed answer. It will take me some time to digest. At first reading, im not seeing an answer to what I realize now was my more fundamental question, which I innacurately stated.
I’m not asking about things disappearing if not observed. I’m assuming they have been observed, which already explains why we perceive them. We’ve already located them in space / time, so that seems a done deal, at least from our point of reference, it seems to me. So, I still don’t see the disconnect between microscopic and macroscopic viewpoints. Everything is made up of those particles (including us), and those particles properties are linked once observed. So, I get that for practical purposes, our observed reality is “set” as soon as we observe it. What I don’t get is how that precludes the possibility for simultaneous realities where that tree, building, etc. doesn’t exist as-is due to my not having observed it.
But perhaps once I’ve re-read your answer a few times I’ll see you’ve already explained your point of view on this.
@wim The initial perception/communication/entanglement isn't by US (humans or animals or anything with a brain and sensory organisms) its by everything in proximity to every other thing. It helps if you take perception out of the realm of biology and cognition and think of it as variables with have combinations and exclusions to them which are communicated (shared by rules).
@LinearLineman
Thanks, yes, I think I was finally approaching that conclusion as I was writing that last post. You helped to coalesce into something I could grasp better.
My cat, Quantum! Thanks @audiblevideo, you know what matter(i)s.
Ha! Matter is 😉
thanks @LinearLineman for bringing this up and @Kühl adding the Everett story
In my personal universe the points of @Max23 and @dendy may well coexist
I don’t understand why people are having such a hard time understanding the point @Max23 made about sound as something we experience as being processed through our ears and brain versus waves of air pressure that are not.
As others have pointed out, quantum mechanics happens at the quantum scale wheras we experience things at the Newtonian scale. As with much of the history of science, it’s not until we’re able to observe more precisely than our senses or previous technology that people can begin to think about new explanations for how things are. Better observations provide the opportunity for better explanations.
Theories are explanations which are then tested versus data collected in experiments designed to test the theory to see the degree to which the theory is supported by the data. Consequently theories can never be considered as definitive answers and are always dependent upon the current state of a particular science and the degree to which there’s consensus which can be far from a cut and dry process. Scientists aspire to try and eliminate bias from the practice of science but a study of the history of science shows many examples of how status quo can impede the acceptance of new discoveries and theories which are grounded in human social behavior rather than the rational framework they aspire to.
Many people who have an axe to grind with science attempt to discredit it by distorting the tentative nature of their conclusions versus the more absolute unvarying perspective they come from which frequently appeals to other people as our social orientation means there’s a strong tendency for uncertainty reduction hence the appeal of common sense.
Magicians for example, rely upon exploiting the many gaps and holes in how we process our perceptions and orient to other people.
At this point, the.best I hope to do is to try and recognize the limits of my understanding rather than focus too much on trying to explain why I’m correct.
The human oriented world is increasingly more dependent and complex so there are a wide range of topics where I don’t have enough knowledge to be able to evaluate the validity of something myself. There is not enough time nor ability on my part to acquire sufficient knowledge to evaluate all of the significant topics which directly effect me nor do I even know what all of those topics might be. All of this has led me to be leery of others who claim to have definitive answers and refuse to reduce the scope of their claims.
Here is definition what is sound:
vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.
Those vibrations exists no
matter if they are heard or aren't. Then "can be" heard not "are heard" - very subtle but MAJOR difference in definition.
Other thing is of course interpretation of that sound, it's sense, it's description within framework patterns and abstract relations created inside out brain to describe / understand world around us. If somewhere is playing music, for human it's music, for dog it's some strange mixture of weird sounds - because dog doesn't have in his mind abstract framework of what is music
But sound itself is what it is. See again description. Just vibrations. If tree falls down inside forest and nobody is around to listen it, it still makes sound. Just there is nobody to heard it and interpret ot as "falling tree". But this doesn't mean it doesn't make sound.
Sound is name for physical process which is happening no matter if somebody is listenting or not.
Of course we can argue about term "sound"
itself, if it makes sense if there is not human, but that's just philosopical crap. We use names for things for simplifying debate.
To be absolutely exact:
If tree falls down in forest, and there is no living organizm near to hear it and interpret it withing own model of world, physicall process which we humans call "sound" is still happening there.
Hope it clears my point enough.
Yeah of course ! Just religion have definitive answers, that's why they are always completely wrong
))
In scientific world you have always "just"
theories. Buy - it is important how big is probability that this theory is correct and complete. Increasing set of experimental and observed evidences increases this probability, if this probability is big enough we don't need take a care about "what it" because that "what if"
may have so small chance to happen that it wil really never happen till end of our universe :-)
But @dendy where is the observer to know the tree has fallen thus making a sound.
As i said. I'm not discussing philosophical pr metaphysical aspect. Not interested in this point of view. I'm talking about pure physical point of view.
That sound is real thing, those vibrations affect enviroment surrounding that three...
Philosophy is just discussion about abstract concepts inside your head, have really nothing to do with real world, real world is subject of physics (and chemistry and other scientific disciplines)
Its VERY important to not mix together philosophy and physics
But that’s just it we not only observe the experiment, we are part of it.
Not sure i understand where you are pointing
Lets do thought experiment. Imagine you go deep into forest, you found tree which is obviously going to fall in next windstorm. You put there audio recorder. Lets suppose no other living creature would near tree when it falls down. Just turned ON audio recorder.
So till yet, there was no "observer" in terms of living creature (eg. human) whose brain should perceive and process this "sound". In your logic, sound did not happened.
Now you return to forest, take audirecorder home and play what's recorder. You now hear the sound of falling tree.
What this means ? That sound like miracle appeared on tape in moment you started listening it ? Or that tree "knew" that you will be listening that recorder one time and thus sound "happened" ?
Or that recorder itself is "observer" ? Then we need define what is observer.. if not living device it observer, isn't observer also any other entity, thing around that tree ? We are starting to be philosophical now
Hope you got my point.
Yes, correctly you determine, we need to define ‘observer/observers’.
What a bunch of brainiacs! Of course there is sound in the forest when there is no human present. It is the tree crying out in pain as it dives toward decomposition! Oh, my well meaning friends. You cannot see the tree for the forest.
I have to agree with @dendy, however. The pressure wave exists no matter what. We all seem to accept that light is a particle or wave. Maybe the same is true for sound. Particle (metaphorically) when heard, wave when not,
When a tree falls in a forest does it make a pressure wave if no one is there to interpret it as sound? Yes ( I think). And is this not irrelevant to the topic as it is not an event on the quantum level?
Now can I have my qat back?
Yes, you’re correct, but if we are talking about a human as the observer, that may not be the only observer, so the observation would still take place more or less as we would expect.