simultaneous frequence and phase estimation

Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:

>>Distrust against my claim is understandable in this case. However, it 
>>does not substitute relevant arguments.
> 
> 
> Right - that would be your part!

I do not substitute arguments by distrust.


>>Even our own ears do better resolve than everybody would expect who 
>>applies Heisenberg's principle in the usual but unjustified manner.
>>(Temporal resolution goes down to less than 10 microseconds, frequency 
>>resolution reaches less than 1 Hz).
> 
> 
> I don't think so, Eckard.
> As Scotty said: "Can't change the law of physics, captain" ;-)

I don't have any idea who Scotty is. Ohm lectured Seebeck in a similar 
manner. Seebeck proved correct more that a hundred years later.
I say: Do not consider your careless application of the uncertainty 
principle a law of physics.



>>There is a quite simple explanation for this paradox:
>>We may analyse high as well as low frequencies at a time, using 
>>different parts of the organ of Corti and massively parallel signal 
>>processing within brain. The natural spectrogram performs in principle 
>>similar but even better.
> 
> 
> Show me how, and why, please!

Simply by providing delta f as small as you like since there is no 
arbitrary time window to chose.
Delta t is given by the sample rate of the input.


>>Natural solutions are subject to real restrictions not to wrong 
>>conclusions.
> 
> 
> From what I've read so far, conclusions are not yet possible based on
> the facts (or lack thereof) presented.

What did you read?


>>I would like to add that those of you are correct to some extend who 
>>know that FCT is usually just the real part of complex FT and therefore 
>>do not expect any change.
> 
> 
> Why should we?

Those who are aware of not knowing all might be more prudent.


>>On the other hand, they overlook that use of FCT in IR+ removes 
>>Hermitian redundancy in case of the only physically relevant positive 
>>elapsed time. 
> 
> 
> Time, as any other unit that you could put into interpreting the
> result of the FCT, DFT, whatever, is totally arbitrary. 

What about me, I do not have command over time. Perhaps, you feel like 
god. At least you are a believer no matter in what.


> The conclusion
> that the direction of time makes any difference here for the result,
> IMHO, is wrong.

I consider your opinion not humble but perhaps a bit stupid in that 
case. I feel myself in the same position as my ears. They cannot analyse 
future data. I am not speaking of fictitious theoretical time and its 
manipulation at will applied on already recorded data.
You are correct if you restrict your thinking to Laplace's deterministic 
position. You are more than a century too late.

Eckard

This all sounds very interesting.  Do you have a journal paper, 
conference paper or patent describing the approach?  I'd like to read 
more about it.  Usenet is not the best or most reliable place for this 
kind of information.

Many thanks,

Paul

If you read German, you might look into the CD of DAGA'03. Do not expect 
too much, since my two papers in it were written more than a year ago.

What about Usenet, I appreciate the possibility to get diverse valuable 
critical replies. Initially, I did not exclude being wrong at least in 
part. Meanwhile, I feel largely correct.

However, I am sure: I would rather have the chance to win in a lottery 
than to get immediately accepted with all my ideas and findings by a 
pair of cautious anonymous referees before I carefully checked every of 
my arguments and anticipated any stupid suspicion against it.

Some marginal mathematical questions are highly controversial.
While I could ignore this, I am not satisfied until I found out the 
truth. In particular, Buridan's donkey and Cantor's paradise are not yet 
completely overcome by Robinson's non-standard analysis.

I am suggesting a unilateral notion of Dirac-delta impulse for IR+.

It took me 18 months of fierce discussion until Hendrik van Hees 
apologized for wrongly blaming me wrong. He is a quantum physicist, and 
the standard model is based on assumed symmetries in complex plane. I do 
not exclude that there is an alternative interpretation.

While nobody found an error in my reasoning so far, I got aware of an 
elusive symmetry in a PRL paper.

There is a long standing quarrel between Peter Cariani and Christian 
K�rnbach. My idea of joint autocorrelation would completely agree with 
the experimental work of both, and it also tallies to work by Lutz 
Wiegrebe. Unfortunately Christian prefers to reject my attempt to 
reconcile them without factual dispute just because he fears damage to 
his reputation based on a JASA paper. Such things happen, he wrote.


Eckard Blumschein


Paul Howland wrote:
> This all sounds very interesting.  Do you have a journal paper, 
> conference paper or patent describing the approach?  I'd like to read 
> more about it.  Usenet is not the best or most reliable place for this 
> kind of information.
> 
> Many thanks,
> 
> Paul

Once more again...whre can I find any papers describing this approache???

In other words, I am still looking for serious description with more
mathematics and significantly less intricately understandable sentences.

Michal
"Paul Howland" <howland@wanadoo.nl> p&#4294967295;se v diskusn&#4294967295;m pr&#4294967295;spevku
news:40ae61ce$0$54136$1b2cd167@news.wanadoo.nl...
> This all sounds very interesting.  Do you have a journal paper,
> conference paper or patent describing the approach?  I'd like to read
> more about it.  Usenet is not the best or most reliable place for this
> kind of information.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Paul

Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:

> I'm not saying he's a fraud (although some of his assertions are
> substantially untenable - such as the claim his Fourier Cosine
> Transform "natural spectrogram" would not be subject to the Heisenberg
> restrictions), ...


Maybe, I found out why both the natural spectrogram and function of 
cochlea are seemingly not bound to the uncertainty principle. Frequency 
of the response chirps up. In other words, while one gets a very early 
response, the initial value of frequency deviates from the stationary 
one. It takes about the theoretically necessary time until frequency 
approaches the stationary value. Perhaps, this phenomenon is similar to 
the superluminal propagation found by Nimtz.

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein wrote:

> Stephan M. Bernsee wrote:
> 
>> I'm not saying he's a fraud (although some of his assertions are
>> substantially untenable - such as the claim his Fourier Cosine
>> Transform "natural spectrogram" would not be subject to the Heisenberg
>> restrictions), ...
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, I found out why both the natural spectrogram and function of 
> cochlea are seemingly not bound to the uncertainty principle. Frequency 
> of the response chirps up. In other words, while one gets a very early 
> response, the initial value of frequency deviates from the stationary 
> one. It takes about the theoretically necessary time until frequency 
> approaches the stationary value. Perhaps, this phenomenon is similar to 
> the superluminal propagation found by Nimtz.
> 
> Eckard

Superluminal propagation of what? Surely not of energy or information!
Superluminal phase velocity is unremarkable. For one, it happens in
every electromagnetic waveguide.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Jerry Avins wrote:
> Eckard Blumschein wrote:

>> Maybe, I found out why both the natural spectrogram and function of 
>> cochlea are seemingly not bound to the uncertainty principle. 
>> Frequency of the response chirps up. In other words, while one gets a 
>> very early response, the initial value of frequency deviates from the 
>> stationary one. It takes about the theoretically necessary time until 
>> frequency approaches the stationary value. Perhaps, this phenomenon is 
>> similar to the superluminal propagation found by Nimtz.

> Superluminal propagation of what? Surely not of energy or information!
> Superluminal phase velocity is unremarkable. For one, it happens in
> every electromagnetic waveguide.

Of course.
Nonetheless, superluminal propagation of evanescent modes in a waveguide 
caused a lot of confusion.
Faster than theoretically possible frequency analysis within the inner 
ear and in particular with the natural spectrogram caused a lot of 
avoidable distrust.

Eckard

Eckard Blumschein wrote:

> Jerry Avins wrote:
> 
>> Eckard Blumschein wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Maybe, I found out why both the natural spectrogram and function of 
>>> cochlea are seemingly not bound to the uncertainty principle. 
>>> Frequency of the response chirps up. In other words, while one gets a 
>>> very early response, the initial value of frequency deviates from the 
>>> stationary one. It takes about the theoretically necessary time until 
>>> frequency approaches the stationary value. Perhaps, this phenomenon 
>>> is similar to the superluminal propagation found by Nimtz.
> 
> 
>> Superluminal propagation of what? Surely not of energy or information!
>> Superluminal phase velocity is unremarkable. For one, it happens in
>> every electromagnetic waveguide.
> 
> 
> Of course.
> Nonetheless, superluminal propagation of evanescent modes in a waveguide 
> caused a lot of confusion.
> Faster than theoretically possible frequency analysis within the inner 
> ear and in particular with the natural spectrogram caused a lot of 
> avoidable distrust.
> 
> Eckard

When a phenomenon is faster (shorter, longer, stronger, ...) than
theoretically possible, it's time to revise the theory. When aerodynamic
theory "proved" that bumblebees can't fly, aerodynamicists knew that a
new and better was called for. "Not theoretically possible" is one kind
of reductio ad absurdam.

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> When a phenomenon is faster (shorter, longer, stronger, ...) than
> theoretically possible, it's time to revise the theory.

...or it's time to double check the numbers... :-)

> When aerodynamic
> theory "proved" that bumblebees can't fly, aerodynamicists knew that a
> new and better was called for. "Not theoretically possible" is one kind
> of reductio ad absurdam.

I agree. However, in Eckards case, we have yet to observe the phenomenon!

;-)

--smb

Jerry Avins wrote:

> When a phenomenon is faster (shorter, longer, stronger, ...) than
> theoretically possible, it's time to revise the theory. 

This was the claim of Nimtz. However, he just misinterpreted the 
preconditions and assumptions of his strange measurement.
Before demanding a revision of theory one should check whether or not it 
is correctly applied. The same confusion was with causality. If I recall 
correctly, someone famous called it a relic of bygone time.
Laws of nature are tricky sometimes.

Eckard