Ciao :)

nice stuff, i like the link project. that was all done in max ? as singularity approaches i find this sort of thing fascinating.... quantum particle non locality that is.....

smorkis has a particle patch similar to this concept...

http://kineme.net/composition/smokris/PauliDysonLenardExclusion

hey dust,

yes, done in max/msp/jitter in all his parts.. it's been a tough job, but fun.. some physical models (msd, nicola montgermont), early max shaders (cycling and there around) and some binaural + granular synthesis plugs.. was a put-everything-you-know moment.. :)

the quantum entanglement idea comes from the "hidden connections" (proxemics..) that the project suggest to "audiovisualise".. to cut a long story short :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement kind of poetic.. yes

i took a look at smorkis video, looks really interesting!! but when I try to open the composition QC crashes and I'm very bad in trouble shooting yet.. any hint? could be some QC + hardware config or what? I guess I'd be supposed to post this question somewhere else..

very much liked your light painting! and the rest.. very useful to go thru. thanks for sharing!

yeah,

i like sharing things, its interesting to me to see sometimes what people come up with. in reference to the light painting, that was just something up for discussion one day that i pieced together. i actually have seen a few cool things made with it on vimeo. i think joe comes to mind ?

open source is one of those things people can take and make something wicked with or totally destroy the original intention. i know i have destroyed enough open source in the last few years of learning to code graphics that i qualify as a destroyer but equally have been able to take someones framework and really make some interesting things.

i havent been going for any wow effects lately, i have had the luxury in the past to work on a few interesting projects that would defiantly fit in the wow or i don't believe you category. so i don't put much effort into demo stuff anymore. i have been more or less interested in learning as much real-time interactive / multi-touch etc... type of coding i can and sharing some of my findings along the way. i'm a firm believer in your thoughts create your reality so its my hopes that one day there will be a device that will uncap my potential.

i guess what i'm saying is now that i have learned how do some of these things i have been carefully working within the boundaries of my current system looking forward but still trying to push these boundaries as far as i can tolerate. so i guess that means messing around with open cl lately, and learning how to optimize code for mobile deployment and stuff like that.

which brings us to the system requirements to run smorkis's pauli-dyson-lenard patch. i believe it requires particle tools which is 32bit only so you would need to get info on qc and open in 32bit mode. thats a leopard erra patch so that is my guess. i haven't got much into particle tools to tell you the truth.

yeah quantum entanglement verses quantum non-locality is all a bit over my head. i think about it a lot and it seems i lie on the fringe of it all because i don't agree with 2d time and what not. i mean that just depresses me and would rather believe in 3d or 4d time as opposed to the traditional linear timeline which sort of defaults to fate being pre-determined from my perspective of space time and would rather think there is a place called time-space (not space time). i'm sure i would get kicked out physics class for even mentioning something silly like 3d time. i just would rather have hope that the laws of physics can be broken rather than being confined to them i guess ??

Rather than a fixed dimension count on time (be it 1D, 2D, or ND), there's always the muliverse interpretation -- I'm not a physicist, so this is possibly trash/junk science. If I understand correctly, MV would imply a gigantic number of dimensions (not ∞, but the number of quantum events, which is extraordinarily high).

i would say m-thoery qualifies as fringe as well. like in set theory i had a hard time at first even grasping the notion of an empty set being a set, ok thats easy enough to postulate but when dealing with infinity that means within the axiom of infinity there also has to be an infinite set of infinities which makes things like m-theory a bit more plausible to me.

Say a decision takes place when a subject encounters a dilemma, but that decision is influenced by events that happened before the dilemma; does the decision potentially exist before the dilemma? Is the decision there, and the dilemma reveals it into a tangible plane? Sequence, timeline, duration, are all very fuzzy.

If a subject postulates an alternate sequence of events, and this influences the sequence of events that are experienced, does this not indicate that the alternate sequence of events has some form? The perception of that alternate sequence isn't locked into a static time (eg., I can condense the thoughts about events over a year into a minute), and has infinite variation. In addition, depending on the context of my perception of the alternate sequence(s), I may draw different conclusions about what that sequence really is.

Is fire good or is fire bad?

"Your left... no, the other left... my left".

eheh.. i knew there were some marvel heroes among you :)

m-theory, quantum non locality, mysterious duality, loop gravity ... all fascinating ... i kind of agree with george (and einstein :) it's all relative! depending on the point of view, perception and perspective of the observer.

personally I go through scientific theories (actually they ARE theories) almost as I would with literature, some ideas resonate more with my perceptions/intuitions/visions than others and therefore talk to me ... I don't mean science it's completely subjective, just that the scientific method is built on observations (from newtons apple to nuclear reactors) and MANY assumptions, and has somehow "took the place" of religion.

it's not given (yet? fortunately?) to have a full picture so when it comes to a certain degree of complexity we can just "believe" into a theory because of (add any personal reason) ... some theories and ideas find favor depending on the historical moment of society, others don't, others come come to early to be accepted ... nevertheless, it's very inspiring (and at times disappointing) to read about how scientists and philosophers "fight" to get their ideas established! but well ... than I go out walking and breathing some oxygen!

thanks for your feedbacks.

g

ps steve's patch works on 32bits, yey

Oh yeah! I forgot the welcome! Nice to see you.

That patch of smokris's is so cool! I ended up adding another emitter on my memory of a video he posted of this that used two emitters, which differed from the composition that was posted, while looking at the composition this past week. I'm not exactly sure how much it ended up looking like the video, because I haven't seen it in a bit, but I would like to share.

The premise is that the second particle emitter chain connected to the scene has increased mass, in comparison to the first emitter chain, and turns on every 10 seconds. I've slowed the rate of the first emitter as well... I don't think I changed anything else.

So this is just an extremely slight reworking of smokris's composition, meant to emulate another version of this that I've seen smokris do.

Thank you, yes I checked the composition and actually it differs a bit from the "push-out effect" on the video but that's not a deal. I hope I'll figure it out whenever I'll need it :)

I'm getting into particle tools.. well, for the moment just trying to figure out how it works. Examples compositions are very useful but it would be great to find a comprehensive list of the Particles Tools Patches (just to now what's in the package.. am I missing some documentation page somewhere?) and to have an idea of how the Objects, Forces, Renderers, Scene, Operators, Colliders can work together, which structures they pass onto each other.. I found this section but it's empty :( http://kineme.net/wiki/ParticleTools

I guess it's a time issue, documentation vs development.. if so forget this questions :)

oups.. found this:

http://www.quartzcomposer.com/categories/53-kineme-particle