Quantum
The W Lyrics
Jump to: Overall Meaning ↴ Line by Line Meaning ↴
Sent from the U.S.A. gonna help me find my way
I'm looking for the next world
And I'll find it if my aim is on time
Won't matter how hard I try
Won't affect no lie
Ain't no starship from America
Gonna take me there
(Looking for the next world)
Ain't no madman plotting stars
Whitecoat on his way to Mars gonna
tell me he's been too
I'm looking for the next world
Rain on my four-cornered cares
Can't fake dimension seven
On a straight highway to heaven
Ain't no starship from America
Gonna take me there
I won't find it through the sky
(Looking for the next world
The W's song "Quantum" is a reflective piece about searching for something beyond our known reality. The singer rejects the notion that any American spacecraft or any madman in a white coat will be able to guide them towards their destination. The singer is on a mission to find the next world, and they posit that they will only arrive there if their aim is true. The singer's attempts won't be influenced by outside forces nor impacted by any lies they may encounter along the way. The singer emphasizes that no matter how hard they try, no American starship will take them to their final destination. They know they will only find their destination if they look beyond the sky, and they are determined to do so.
In the second verse, the singer denotes that they won't be misled by someone who has just gone to Mars and claims to have found what the singer is searching for. The singer implies that they are looking for something too large and too significant to be reduced to the status of a mere discovery. The singer is determined to escape the mundane and rain on their four-cornered cares. The singer is striving for a world beyond the reach of their known existence, one that can't be explained by dimensions or any highway to heaven. The singer again emphasizes that they know their quest won't be aided by any American starship, and they won't find what they are looking for through the sky. Instead, they are looking for the Next World – a new realm of existence.
Line by Line Meaning
Ain't no American Starship
There's no spacecraft from the USA
Sent from the U.S.A. gonna help me find my way
That can help me find the path I'm searching for
I'm looking for the next world
I'm in search of a new world
And I'll find it if my aim is on time
I will find it if my timing is accurate
Won't matter how hard I try
It doesn't matter how hard I attempt
Won't affect no lie
It won't alter the truth
Ain't no starship from America
There's no American starship
Gonna take me there
That can transport me to the next world
Through the sky
By flying in the sky
(Looking for the next world)
I'm still searching for a new world
Ain't no madman plotting stars
There's no insane person calculating celestial bodies
Whitecoat on his way to Mars gonna tell me he's been too
Even if a scientist in a lab coat on the way to Mars tells me they have found it already
Rain on my four-cornered cares
My problems are trivial
Can't fake dimension seven
I can't fake the seventh dimension
On a straight highway to heaven
On a direct route to paradise
Ain't no starship from America
There's no American starship
Gonna take me there
That can transport me to the next world
I won't find it through the sky
I won't find it flying in the sky
(Looking for the next world)
Still chasing after the next world
Contributed by Caleb K. Suggest a correction in the comments below.
Chris Chiesa
I have always taken issue with the "two lightning bolts" (or equivalent) argument against absolute simultaneity. If the moving person arrives at the midpoint between the two bolts, i.e. at the location of the stationary observer, at the same moment that the stationary observer observes the two books striking simultaneously, then shouldn't the moving observer, being at the same place at the same time*, observe the *same thing? I realize that there could be a problem in my use of the terms "same place" and "same time," but then, there is, also, in any such thought experiment, including the original.
Perhaps the problem arises thus: All of this discussion of simultaneity relies on the implicit assumption that time can be sliced infinitely finely, such that an "instant" of zero duration can be considered — a slice of the Universe in which several events are frozen: the moving observer is exactly coincident with the stationary observer, and the light from both lightning bolts is reaching the stationary observer. It seems inescapable that given these two events, a third must also be: the light from the two bolts must also be reaching the moving observer (who is at the same position), at the same time. In a time-slice of duration zero, there can be no motion, therefore no overt difference between a stationary and a moving observer.
There seem to be several possible ways out of this: One, time cannot be infinitely subdivided and it is not legitimate to "consider an insumtance of zero duration." Two, the act of observation, in itself, takes time, which allows for a difference between stationary and moving observers. And three, time can be infinitely thinly sliced, a zero- duration interval is legitimate, but a moving observer remains distinct from a stationary observer via a difference in some innate property — energy or momentum being a likely candidate.
So, how do we reconcile these things and determine which supposition(s) is/are true, which is/are are false, and why (i.e., on what basis do we derive and defend the answer)?
If there's anything to the philosophical notion that the properties of the Universe are obit determined by what we choose to observe/conclude/theorize, it would seem to be unfortunate that we've happened to nail down "the speed of light" as the universal speed limit, since a different choice might have given us access to more of the Universe.
Discuss.
Doron Ron
I've watched RI lectures since I can't remember (I'm 64). Jim carefully talked his presentation through in such a way that I heard and could digest every word. Perhaps the sound effects weren't necessary, but otherwise he managed to avoid any other dramatic concessions. For an interested layman, I've never seen a better lecture on this or any other subject. Thank you.
Krishna Prasad Shivarpatna
ಏಏ
Krishna Prasad Shivarpatna
ಐಐಐಏ
crtxl
The sfx were totally unnecessary and annoying. Therefore, I'll never know how it ended.
Jan Gilbert
I am in no way a mathematician! I just am fascinated by quantum theory etc. and this was outstanding!
Bob Aldo
I agree. It is a great lecture!
Roger Rosenquist
He has a wonderful talent for making these extremely difficult concepts (somewhat) understandable while putting the listener at ease about not totally understanding it.😊
Dr10Jeeps
Excellent lecture! I loved every minute of it. A hearty thank you to Dr. Baggott and the RI. I can't recall ever meeting a RI lecture I didn't enjoy.
The Royal Institution
Oh you, flattery will get you everywhere.
MrTommy4000
I guess the first half rehash is unavoidable, but the second half was highly effective in guiding me towards a better understanding of the big picture. Cheers to all involved in producing this little gem !