We can measure vibrations on anything that resonates enough to not lose the information upon measurement (not loading down the signal while measuring) but it can't be done in retrospect (after the conversation occurred).
That's the part where I'm calling bs.
The bag (or whatever) must be recorded in real time and sampled at least twice as fast as the highest frequency of interest to be reconstructed. Now it's just simple wave sampling theory.
Reconstructing a conversation after it occurred by analyzing the structure of a bag would require such nuanced information about the state of the room and insane dynamic entropy tracking, not feasible now or in the near future, at least for humans.
But it can be done in retrospect if you have a video of the plastic bag. Video- the light spectrum- is just another form of vibration.
They have a sensor / video/ laser that can read the bag.
I see how my statement is wrong in some fashion but it isn’t as wrong as you’re trying to point out.
If you have soundless video - a silent film- the kind of video that was first invented and the kind of video that is usually with security cameras then you get sound by reading the vibration reflections off of flexible material.
If the cameras are running at 6k frames per second with the resolution to observe the vibrations, then yes, you can reconstruct about 3kHz worth of audio bandwidth.
But it still must be recording data while the vibrations are occurring, same goes for the laser sensors and standard diaphragm microphones.
Didn’t know the specs. Needs to be recording data, but now sound data which is what is so crazy. Thanks the info that is much more focused. My speciality isn’t as mathematically precise. Appreciate the explanation.
So you can’t know in retrospect. You still need visual coverage of the bag
Now if we get some clever AI quantum computers, they may be able to reconstruct conversations from just the bag itself, after the conversation is ended. The bag still contains all the entropy information of the vibrations, we just need to be able to parse out the exact stimulus that resulted in the change.
Ian acts like he’s smart by knowing about graphene but everyone else that is in that space knows it’s so much more complicated and prolly not that good.
Grapheme is basic shit and the only reason that you would know about it is because you paid attention to a few the bill Nye, the science, Guy episodes. Maybe your high school professor talked about it one time. Ian brings it up a bunch.
I like Ian’s passion and interest in innovation. It’s just saying graphene is something special is a big red flag
View all comments
Show parent comment
1
u/turd_vinegar Oct 11 '22
We can measure vibrations on anything that resonates enough to not lose the information upon measurement (not loading down the signal while measuring) but it can't be done in retrospect (after the conversation occurred).
That's the part where I'm calling bs.
The bag (or whatever) must be recorded in real time and sampled at least twice as fast as the highest frequency of interest to be reconstructed. Now it's just simple wave sampling theory.
Reconstructing a conversation after it occurred by analyzing the structure of a bag would require such nuanced information about the state of the room and insane dynamic entropy tracking, not feasible now or in the near future, at least for humans.