Physics Rebel Aims To Shake Up the Video Game World 89
waderoush writes "Physicist Shahriar Afshar is famous as the designer of the 'Afshar Experiment,' a study first described in 2004 that called into question Neils Bohr's observation that it's impossible to observe light's wave-like properties and its particle-like properties at the same time. Not surprisingly, the idea met with widespread resistance in the physics community. While he waits for the controversy to settle down, Afshar himself is taking a detour into the video game world. He's now the president and CTO of Immerz, a Cambridge, MA-based startup building an 'acousto-haptic' interface that drapes over a gamer's shoulders and turns video game sound into (literally) chest-pounding vibrations. Xconomy was allowed to test the device, and has the full story behind Afshar's unusual journey and the company's hopes for enhancing PC and console gamers' experience of action/adventure/first-person-shooter titles."
porn (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Chest pounding vibrations. That's all I'll say.
You can already get something very similar. (Score:3, Informative)
Parent:
Chest pounding vibrations. That's all I'll say.
Product on thinkgeek:
...an impact-generating device [thinkgeek.com] that gives you precise pressure where it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
There's nothing special about these devices. Hell, I got a similar device on sale over a decade ago - an Aura Interactor - and it was pretty meh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe there was a Nintendo-64 Accessory also, but the only link I can find using the "30-second google test" is to a Ebay auction, which I shant repost.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Chest pounding vibrations. That's all I'll say.
The Rez videogame already provides a vibrator to "enhanced" game play. Not just imagine if you were a female watching a Sybian video...... not only could you see the action but also feel it as well.
early adopters :) (Score:2)
They were always early adopters of the 'new' technology
-------
Making (microsoft) ACPI not work with Linux
"Foxconn
The one for Linux points to a badly written table that does not correspond to the board's ACPI implementation, causing weird kernel errors, stran
Sounds dangerous (Score:4, Funny)
Immerz’s product, called Kor-fx ...
So anytime you get shot in game, Kor hits you with a bat'leth?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Reminds me of the "Get ready to Rumble"-pack, but with a chip on my shoulder.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumble_Pak [wikipedia.org]
It's "Niels" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's "Niels" (Score:5, Funny)
There is no "Neil" in Bohr. He's Danish: His Name is Niels Bohr, Niels Henrik David Bohr. Seriously, people...
According to quantum mechanics there's a vanishingly small possibility that the 's' simply disappeared.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "Neil" in Bohr. He's Danish: His Name is Niels Bohr, Niels Henrik David Bohr. Seriously, people...
According to quantum mechanics there's a vanishingly small possibility that the 's' simply disappeared.
It's all your fault. The "s" both existed and didn't exist there in superposition until you decided to read the post and collapse the wave.
Re: (Score:2)
I hate quantum physics. Does an electron actually exist in both places at the same time?
Or is it more likely we just lack the proper understanding to make an accurate prediction, so instead we have to play with probability (i.e. guess). Imagine how people would have laughed if Newton said, "The force the apple hit me on the head is determined by gravity. Or maybe it was an orange. I just don't know."
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible to formulate tests that differentiate between "we lack information about the object or the theory, and so can only describe it's position statistically" and "the object's state is not a discrete position and momentum, but a wavefunction that can be interpreted as a statistical distribution". These test have, of course, been formulated and conducted. I think you can guess how they turn out.
Don't confuse "quantum mechanics is difficult to understand" with "quantum mechanics must be wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't point. My point is that if we meant some advanced race, they'd just laugh at us and say, "Of course the electron's momentum and position can be determined. There's no need for probability functions." We humans just haven't reached that stage yet.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is, your view has been considered (in fact, nearly any neophyte physicist has the same thought). It is a testably incorrect view.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a good question, and it deserves a better answer than the ones you have gotten so far.
It all comes down to Bell's theorum (John S. Bell)
From wikipedia: "Bell's theorem is a no-go theorem, loosely stating that: No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theore [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
OMG. EPIC FAIL! He mean how you UStards always put the e before the i! Look at it again, retard!
nIEls. Not nEIls!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Niels Henrik David Bohr. Seriously, people...
You spelled Henry wrong ;-)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A: To get away from Niels Bohr. But when he got to the other side, Bohr was there too.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Q: Why did Albert Einstein cross the road?
A: To get away from Niels Bohr. But when he got to the other side, Bohr was there too.
A. To prove that it could be done. But when he got to the other side, Bohr had tunneled there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Q: Why did Albert Einstein cross the road?
Did Einstein cross the road? Or did the road pass beneath his feet? It depends on your frame of reference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Poll: which of these is the correct spelling of Bohr's first name?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chest pounding vibrations... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's call it... uuum... natural selection! :P
!Controvrsy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:5, Insightful)
So it should be:
Physics Crackpot Aims To Shake Up the Video Game World ?
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:4, Insightful)
Except he's not going to shake up anything, other than investor dollars. I dont know how many times it needs to be said: gamers dont want to wear equipment. No gloves or helmets or chest pieces. Its market suicide.
Not to mention that stuff begins to smell after a while. Brings back memories of playing Photon way back when.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You hold something with the wii, you dont wear a helmet or chest piece. People in general dont want to wear stuff. Its been true since the 1980s.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it should read:
Undeservingly distinguished hack scientist participates in unremarkable product development, set to make virtually no impact on the gaming world.
...or some other form of dead air.
And this gizmo is just a minor variation on an old [engadget.com] theme [cnet.com].
File this one under 'yawn'.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:5, Informative)
"Controversy" already settled by being tagged "BS" by major physicists.
Yup, the experiment didn't work with a single photon when they wanted to verify the results. The Copenhagen interpretation still remains intact.
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:5, Funny)
Yup, the experiment didn't work with a single photon when they wanted to verify the results. The Copenhagen interpretation still remains intact.
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of cats cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>> Yup, the experiment didn't work with a single photon when they wanted to
>> verify the results. The Copenhagen interpretation still remains intact.
>I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of cats cried out in terror
> and were suddenly silenced.
That should be "...and may have been suddenly silenced."
Re: (Score:1)
Nope. The box should be soundproof, otherwise you'd have an observer.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they exist in an indeterminate state of being silenced and not silenced.
A bit of background on duality (Score:4, Interesting)
For those who care: some background. The experiment discusses the "duality of light" (light/particle nature). However, the question isn't "does light behave as a wave or a particle?" That's not really a question that needs asking, various theories of the propagation of light are well established and understood. Geometric optics treats light as a particle and is valid within the constraint that you're dealing with structures that are large compared with the wavelength of the light. The electromagnetic wave approach covers, more or less, all propagation of light and treats light as a wave. Finally, quantum optics is used to explore the interaction of light with matter. Here's where duality becomes interesting: working with the electromagnetic field as a quantum field, the notion of a photon as a quantum particle arises. The propagation of the photon is well described by considering it as a classical electromagnetic wave but the picture of a photon is useful when discussing it's interaction with matter (for example, the photoelectric effect [wikipedia.org]).
In the case of the double-slit experiment, which is the basis for Afshar's experiment, the propagation of light can be described classically by treating it as an electromagnetic wave. However, double slit experiments work with single photons as well. Single photons are only described by quantum optics and when the experiment is done with prepared single photons, the interference fringes (viewed in the Fourier plane) can be considered a measurement of the momentum of the photon as it passes through one of the slits (where it ends up on the screen depends on what direction it was travelling in when it passed through the slit). Which slit it passes through is a measurement of the position. Position and momentum are complementary variables in quantum mechanics and cannot be measured simultaneously with perfect accuracy.
Afshar proposed an experiment to do exactly that, measure both. The key criticism, however, is that the interference fringes (momentum measurement) aren't observed, they're inferred, which doesn't really constitute a measurement. His thought experiment was analyzed quantitatively as well as was found not to violate the complementarity of the position and momentum variables. The issue is further obscured by the fact that the measurements are related to the spatial mode of the photon and it's propagation vector, which is related, but not quite identical, to a position-momentum measurement for a more classical particle. In any case, Afshar's work is interesting, but doesn't really tread the revolutionary/crackpot line, it can be analyzed well within the existing body of knowledge of quantum optics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is interesting that they tagged it as BS and invalidated the experiment by using the single photon results... but these "major physicist" all disagree as to exactly WHY it's invalided... some say that there is no which-way information, others say there is but that it fails for other reasons... I don't really understand all the implications of the experiment, but I found his approach novel and insightful, and the stir it caused very amusing. And I still leave room for the possibility that Copenhagen may in fact be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time that "settled science" has been turned upside down.
You clearly didn't read or understand the Copenhagen interpretations. You're just making the assumption that scientists couldn't peak over the wall so they simply imagined what could be there. What was discussed in the copenhagen interpretations did not necessarily pose an answer to this experiment, but if the experiment would have been successful it would have proven some of the Copenhagen interpretations to be false. Also it is not the first time there's a difference between macroscopic and microscopic ev
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
"Controversy" already settled by being tagged "BS" by major physicists
Indeed - any self respecting Physicist should have at least an MSc.
Re:!Controvrsy (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.
You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not quite as bad as most crackpots. I looked it up on Wikipedia and it looks like his big mistake is writing a blog about it. That's the difference between a controversial (or perhaps flat out incorrect) theory and a crackpot theory; the blog about it. His paper has sparked much debate over it's validity which makes it a valuable contribution. Even if it's incorrect, it has enough merit to provoke criticism, not dismissal.
You're allowed to be wrong in science; being wrong is still more useful than saying nothing. Just don't blog about it.
Erm... It's a crackpot hypothesis [dict.org], not a crackpot theory [dict.org]. If I understand correctly, there are no experimental results that support his idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean, like Intelligent Design..?
Anyone can put up anything in these times we live in, and have it accessible to a reasonable audience in terms of numbers with the right kind of 'marketing'. Some of them deserve stinging criticism followed by a dismissal.
Re: (Score:2)
Intelligent Design has only ever really gotten dismissal from the scientific community. The "discussion" is a myth that they promulgate. Not shutting up is not the same as sparking debate.
Let me qualify my remarks as not being hostile towards the coexistence of religion and science (even as perceived by one person). It's really just the idea of passing religion off as being derived from scientific principles that I disagree with. They can coexist because the precepts are orthogonal.
Physics rebel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate when media makes up "impressive" headlines out of nothing.
The article may be worth from a point of view of a new controller but using terms such as "physics rebel" to make the controller sound like it will change the world (just like the "physics rebel" did) just pisses me off.
If Afshar's theory/experiment contradicts the mainstream physics, does this makes him headline-worth "physics rebel"? If yes, there are millions of wackos around the world with their crazy theories.
Foundations of Physics (where he published the last) may be a peer reviewed journal but its impact factor is very low (i.e. it is not a highly regarded journal) and it is known for publishing crazy (or should I call them rebellious) claims.
And they can't even spell Niels Bohr's name correctly...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed, and his "physics rebel" credentials are irrelevant to the story in any case.
I read this article because the headline made it sound like they were doing something really new and different in the world of video game physics. I mean, what else would you assume from the title?
Then I see it's just an advertisement for yet another thing that thumps you when there's a loud noise in a game. As several others have already said in this slightly-commented-on-article, it's not exactly new and revolutionary. And
Re:Physics rebel? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Afshar's theory/experiment contradicts the mainstream physics, does this makes him headline-worth "physics rebel"? If yes, there are millions of wackos around the world with their crazy theories.
Please don't conflate the two like that. An experiment that contradicts existing theories is headline worthy and interesting. Theories that contradict existing theories are ten a penny.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If Afshar's theory/experiment contradicts the mainstream physics
The funny thing is that it doesn't even do that: it is an attempt to find an experiment that distinguishes between different interpretations of QM, which no one has ever been able to do. Everyone agrees, phenomenologically, what the results of the experiment should be, and the results of the experiment are consistent with the results predicted by QM.
The question that got people arguing is whether or not this proves or disproves the Copenhagen
For a physics rebel (Score:3, Interesting)
Short-lived Technology (Score:2)
Draped over the shoulder...? Pah!
I see from another article that Xerox are making great strides with printable electronics so die-hard gamers will have their haptic transducers tattooed all over their body and will live the experience 24/7.
Imagine the possibilities - without the need to leave Mom's basement, you could load up 'MyRealWorld' and get mugged, roughed up by the local bully, groped on the subway (or grope someone else!), knocked in the shin by a supermarket trolley, bitten by a yappy dog in the p
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed, we should make a total immersive environment where you don't have to leave your home physically to experience the "real" world. Even better, just take the energy to drive the system directly from the attached humans. And to minimize the expenses of supporting your body, take advantage of the fact that you won't notice your basement anyway, and instead let people live inside the machine, where the basic necessities can more easily be cared about automatically. We might call that system the Matrix.
Physics rebel (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
C'mon. It wasn't a prompt escape, and the sum of the amplitudes of their wave functions is still 0.12 - .312i for being in the stockade. Afshar and his team will be probably free until the government finds them, collapsing the wave function. Remember, call 555-PHYSICS if you need them. If you don't observe anybody answering, rotate your phone 90 degrees to change the phase and try again.
Perry Bible Fellowship comic... (Score:2)
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF134-Game_System.gif [pbfcomics.com]
It's been done before (Score:2)
I recall there was a force-feedback vest back in the 16-bit console days, which I think was also based on audio (bass, which most gamers' TV rarely reproduced anyway). It wasn't a huge success, in spite (or because) of its USP: a game based on flatulence in which you played ambulant snot.
Prior Art (Score:1)
sounds (bone)phony to me.... (Score:1)
It's the Bone Phone (Score:2)
Lawsuits in 3..2...1.. (Score:2)
I can see it now, someone goes on a 24 hour gaming bender and their insides get liquified due to this thing.
Prior Art... (Score:2)
... if he's considering patenting this thing: The Bone Fone.
I got one back in the '80s from DAK. Still have it and it still works. Just add a jack for a sound card to plug into and I think you pretty much have the same game interface. There's not a lot of bass response -- certainly nothing one could call "chest thumping" -- but making it bigger would help in that area. (Comfort might be questionable, though.) So, exactly how radical an idea is this really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Aura Interactor? (Score:2, Informative)
Physics rebel (Score:1)