1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Biological system based on a wave function

  1. Apr 24, 2005 #1
    The Second Ring of Life; The Vesica Attractor
    by Christopher Humphrey


    The fossil record shows a disparity in the formation of complex body plans.
    The individual eukaryote cannot build these structures. They do not carry within themselves a blue print for an overall structure.
    Science today is attempting to answer these questions, [ via, systems science] though genomic constraints. My discovery shows the missing information in the original body design was provided by a wave function, acting on a mass of oolitic spheres bound by a microbial substrate.{ a dissipative structure}
    This substrate crystallized into an archetypal pattern. The first complex animal life. [source of a body plan pattern] that then spawn an entire phyla.
    This central archetype then becomes a sustained, central information bank for the phyla.
    Releasing new genetic information in pulses over time.
    This model not only accounts for the original forms, but also genetic control patterns of punctuated equilibrium. This is what this fossil is showing, in the context of the fossil record.

    Origin the phyla ;The next three sections will address gaps in our understanding of morphological origins and genetic controls of the phyla.

    1[A Blindfolded Watchmaker] Gaps in our understanding in morphological controls.

    2[ The Landscape of Possibility: ] A systems view of self-organization from pre-existing possibilities.

    3.[ Archetypal life forms] Will attempt to answer these questions of a morphological source, {hierarchical disparity},and central genetic controls.

    A Blindfolded Watchmaker:
    The Arrival of the Fittest
    David L. Wilcox


    1. Life's origin. The origin of life requires the initial encoding of specified blueprints, a non-Darwinian process. Specification involves arbitrary definitions for the "letters" used to write the "messages." How then did specified complexity (blueprints and their described products/"machines") arise from any amount of nonspecified complexity (complex machines, but no blueprints)? Are we really making progress in explaining the source of the genetic code? "The holy grail is to combine information content with replication" (Orgel in Amato, 1992). That is, we need a machine that can write down its own specifications (Thaxton, 1984).

    2. Origin of the first animals (Cambrian era). The Cambrian explosion illustrates the abrupt formulation of body-plan constraints (Erwin, et al. 1987). But how within 25 million years (impalas have remained unchanged longer than that) could the full complexity of 70plus metazoan phylum level body-plans arise, and be individuated with error-checking developmental cybernetic controls from protozoans? Remember that protozoans do not have encoded genetic information for morphology due to cellular interaction. How can code that does not yet exist be mutated? Further, given the appearance of new code, how are phylum level morphological "norms" generated, capable of holding for the remainder of the Phanerozoic? As David Jablonski put it, "The most dramatic kinds of evolutionary novelty, major innovations, are among the least understood components of the evolutionary process" (Lewin, 1988).

    3. Species stasis. Species show morphological stasis in the face of high levels of selectable diversity (Stanley, 1979 & 1985). But what sort of genetic anchor can hold constant a species' morphological mean and variance for several million years (Michaux, 1989), when enough genetic diversity exists in such species to allow laboratory selection to cause a ten-fold movement of that morphological mean? Are current models of the informational organization of the genome adequate to explain this? This difficulty is reinforced by the still greater morphological stasis shown by the body-plans of the higher levels of the taxonomic system, a stasis that seems to shape, direct, and constrain lower level change in an almost " archetypic " manner. This is hardly the neo-Darwinian prediction.

    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 24, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    are you the author of this? this is even worse than creationism..

    the arguments are somewhat weak, and i'm waiting for biophysicists to come in and tear it to shreds.

    to summarize the weakness: you are assuming abiogenesis to be improbable as well as lacking evidence of. the rest of that is speculation and i dont really see how wave function pertains to macromolecules, unless you are completely going to say Bohmian Mechanics was just a joke and what Bohm meant was that "size doesnt matter". Furthermore, a virus doesnt constitute as part of the larger, dynamic system until it invades the host, rewires the machinery and produce its equal offspring. An argument of small unit being part of big unit as well as the big unit being the part of the bigger picture is an unscientific speculation.
  4. Apr 24, 2005 #3
    Molecular and morphological mechanisms achieve a sudden self ordering in this dissipative structure, wherein environmental information is suddenly bound to a hierarchal internal system. from overall symmetry, to genetic level potentials.

    This system forms all at once, from a fluid dissipative tours structure, though a geometric crystallization stage, to genomic algorithmic self-assembly stage. This process is powered by two connecting levels of flow, one of wave dynamics redirected into the structure by its shape, and one the chemical flow on the molecular level, [by the dissolving oolites in the microbial substrate.] These two flow patterns connect, and in doing so self-organize the physical components around this flow.[ see dissipative structure] [live rock, aragonite\ strontium]
  5. Apr 24, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    On what planet? And where is the evidence?

    Ahh I see what it is. You are an engineer. I knew that sounded too good to be coming from a scientist :rofl:
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  6. Apr 24, 2005 #5
    earth; view artifact at; http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=2128032952 [Broken]
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  7. Apr 24, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm sorry but all I see is a rock.. No SEM pictures, no spectrographs, no flow models, no statistical distributions.. nothing pertaining to systems biology

    And you didnt answer to my argument about the size of macromolecules for wavefunctions to collapse. A tiny little amino acid in superposition - ok, unlikely, but ok. A blob of DNA in superposition? Doubtful
  8. Apr 24, 2005 #7
    It should take some time to understand the components and dynamics and form questions.
    This is backed up by physics, but you need to think about the subject longer than 10 min. in order to understand it. Your questions need to be more carfully thought out. keep in mind I am an engineer that studies system science, so slow down with the termonogy. I am sure you know your field of study very well, but we can only exchange information when we both understand the context of the subject matter.

    fossils are rocks, There is a photo shop rending also.
  9. Apr 24, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    ok to rephrase my point

    wavefunctions, wave collapses and superpositions pertain to particles, not big objects like cells. Lets start with this first.
  10. Apr 24, 2005 #9
    This is an important part of in this self-construction process called, tensigrity. This cohesion connects the structure as the oolitic mass shrinks, or {dissipates}

    As the oolites lose mass they induce the production of new filaments that emerge from the outer cellular membranes of the eukaryotes . Anchoring proteins extend through the plasma membrane to link to the emerging cytoskeleton structure. Simply put, as the temporary oolitic scaffolding deconstructs, it constructs it's permanent replacement. These Anchoring-type junctions not only hold cells together but provide tissues with structural cohesion. These junctions are produced more abundantly in tissues that are subject to higher mechanical stress such as the outer skin and heart. Connective tissues begin forming flexible geodesic scaffolding by drawing in and connecting to points in space where the oolites have now vacated. These connecting points form the extracellular matrix,

    As the oolitic mass shrinks....A crystallization of genetic probabilities emerge from a medium of cohesive networks, forming self reflexive circuits of tension.{ see tensegrity }

    This is what I am referring to as a {descending order of iteration matrices that self organize the cellular structure}Tensigrity combined with fluid dynamics, builds the architectural framework first.

    This wave of tension descends to the cellular level. The extracellular matrix will begin to form bonds with the intracellular matrix inside the individual cell.

    [This intracellular matrix controls gene switching]

    What is tensegrity?
    "The word 'tensegrity' is an invention: a contraction of 'tensional integrity.' Tensegrity describes a structural-relationship principle in which structural shape is guaranteed by the finitely closed, comprehensively continuous, tensional behaviors of the system and not by the discontinuous and exclusively local compressional member behaviors. Tensegrity provides the ability to yield increasingly without ultimately breaking or coming asunder"

    This 'tensional integrity' allows the mass to form an architectural framework, as well as enabling genomic probabilities to manifest, and be maintained by wave patterns decending though the extra-intra-cellular matrix.

    Tensegrity I: Cell structure and hierarchial systems biology

    Donald E. Ingber

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  11. Apr 24, 2005 #10
    The wave function is captured during the formation of the heart. The heart is formed by the coiling of layers of cells. This core as it is tightly wound would pinch off from the outer intake apertures. These two pinch points become the sinoatrial and atrioventricular nodes. This winding and binding of the layered core would cinch the layers like the spine of a book with the pages curled back and attached to the spine in a circuit, now between the nodes layers are formed like pages, the nodes like the corners where all the layers meet to form two point attractors. The electrical signal pulses in a symmetrical circuit like a bar magnet. perpetually circulating a pulse of energy.

    It is simultaneously embedded into a fractal structure, acting in the same circular fashion. When the pulse of energy in the circulatory system is returned to the heart it reacts in a same synchronized pattern. The right and left ventricle, and right and left atrium, act as the two attractor nodes, in the self-same pattern as the heart structure. This dual wave pattern “nest” itself or is fractal-embedded, one within the other. This nesting of wave patterns not only self stabilizes these two wave pulses but produces an effect called;

    heterodyning . Alternating currents of two different frequencies that are combined to produce two new frequencies, the sum and difference of the original frequencies,

    This resonance produces waves of descending amplitude that maintain the layered physical structure. This resonating multi-level wave pattern is not only the foundation of our structure. It is the founding flow of information that the structure was built around.
    This circulating flow of information forms a sustained attractor connecting information from the environment to the cell.

    Genomic controls follow this pattern…. just as in the beginning.

    Environment-Wave function-architecture-genome…..
  12. Apr 24, 2005 #11


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    tell you what.. im gonna go collapse my consciousness' wavefunction into the sleeping state, because this is just plain speculation
  13. Apr 24, 2005 #12
    This is why artificial hearts will not keep a person alive.
    It is much more than just a pump, it is an attractor organizing a hierarchy of information.
  14. Apr 24, 2005 #13
    This may be a solution to some lose ends in our present understanding the development of complex morphology. The answer it appears is the architectural framework formed first, from wave dynamics working from the outside inward, while the interior design of genetics, worked from the inside out. Presently most research is focused solely on genetic controls in the formation of complex morphology. The answer it appears is that nature hired its architect first {wave dynamics} its interior designer second, {genetic probabilities} Just as we would in building a structure.
  15. Apr 24, 2005 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Artificial hearts DO keep people alive. I will read the rest of the thread later.
  16. Apr 24, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have read all the replies and I have NO idea what you are talking about. Why do you keep referring to oolites, these are calcium grains as I understand it. And you say:
    I must say that you are wrong here. You should study organism development first before you say anything about blueprints for life. Scientists know many genes that are important in development and that dictate body plan. Drosophila melanogaster (fruitfly) and Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode worm) are two very important organisms. By mutating a gene you can get a fruitfly that has two bellies and no back. Or you get a fly with an extra set of wings, or its wings on its head. There are many more examples.

    Your model of 'wave function' sounds crackpotery to me, especially since your first post is incredibly incoherent.
  17. Apr 24, 2005 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Metatron, they're tough on you huh?

    How about Rene' Thom's "Sturctural Stability and Morphogenesis" along with Stuart Kauffman's group at Santa Fe and their work with "catalytic closure"?

    Really, I think these routes are the best approach to abiotic evolution. Oh my God. Think I should take cover? :eek:

    Oh yea, I wish to quote Rene' Thom once more as I believe it is one of the most profound statements I know of:

    "all creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement by capture by the attractors representing the final forms".

    Beautiful! That's one reason why I hang out over there in the Math groups.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  18. Apr 24, 2005 #17
    "I have read all the replies and I have NO idea what you are talking about. Why do you keep referring to oolites, these are calcium grains as I understand it. "

    One key to understanding the self-making ability of the embryonic material that forms the vesica attractor is in it's ability to shape-shift around the tendency of a fluid to seek an ordered path though and around a medium. This medium having a fine balance of cohesion and plasticity.
    The next key is in the mineral content of the spheres. Aragonite, this form of calcium carbonate has properties that promote microbial growth and acts as a mineral substrate for initiating an autopoetic biochemical cycle. This mineral has been discovered to be a fundamental element in maintaining an autopoetic system in coral reefs and closed artificial systems such as salt water aquariums.

    "I must say that you are wrong here. You should study organism development first before you say anything about blueprints for life. Scientists know many genes that are important in development and that dictate body plan. Drosophila melanogaster (fruitfly) and Caenorhabditis elegans (nematode worm) are two very important organisms. By mutating a gene you can get a fruitfly that has two bellies and no back. Or you get a fly with an extra set of wings, or its wings on its head. There are many more examples.

    Your model of 'wave function' sounds crackpotery to me, especially since your first post is incredibly incoherent."

    Yes, my writing ability is not my best, but….. I am not uneducated, just untrained, this combined with this discovery allowed me to see beyond "group think" about morphology this information given a small amount of attention will prove correct and will help advance our understanding how cells communicate.

    Remember this information comes from a fossil, it shows complex life arose from an attractor. This should be no surprise to systems biologist.

    This model shows cells communicate primarily though a wave function. This also should be no surprise. We as organisms relate to the environment though this medium as well as communicate and connect ourselves by wave functions of sound, light, electromagnetism. We are doing it right now.

    The genomic controls found in Drosophila, appear to reflect a fascinating hierarchal pattern of Arthropoda, these genomic control centers appear to have descended out from the original central archetype, and regulated to lower level centers.
    A comparison could be made as a queen regulates the genome for a colony of bees. The Drosophila appear to have a built in stabilizing system of their own. If this analogy is not correct in your framework, explain. I could be misinterpreting it to fit my own model.

    What I suggest however is chordate’s have a central original archetype. This hierarchal control retained as a actual classification of distinct entities.

    These entities would regulate a two fold system. One at accumulating information that falls outside the parameters of a morphological mean, or stasis. Keeping the phyla’s genomic controls stable over time, And simultaneously allowing this collection of instabilities to self organize in its own separate space. Once this system reaches a threshold it emerges as an individual entity. A second level archetype, a new species reflecting the aspect of two basins of attraction, environment, and genetic probabilities.
  19. Apr 24, 2005 #18
    "all creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement by capture by the attractors representing the final forms".

    Thanks for the support, I think I am going to need all the help I can get!
    Yes that is a beautiful quote, and one that I have never heard.

    Here are Three of my favorites on this theme;

    "Morphology is not only a study of material things and of the forms of material things, but has its dynamical aspect ... in terms of force, of the operations of energy. This is a great theme. Boltzmann, writing in 1886 on the second law of thermodynamics, declared that available energy was the main object at stake in the struggle for existence and the evolution of the world" D'Arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form, 1917

    ..to (in)form buildings with thematic meaning, they must convey a gestalt, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts, and there must also be an ambiguity and paradox immanent within that gestalt, as a tension. (And quoting Heckscher on composition...) It is the taut composition which contains contrapuntal relationships, equal combinations, inflected fragments, and acknowledged duality's. It is the unity which maintains, but only just maintains, a control over the clashing elements which compose it. Chaos is very near, its nearness, but its avoidance, gives ...force" Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966

    "There is geometry in the humming of the strings... there is music in the spacing of the spheres". Pythagoras
  20. Apr 24, 2005 #19
    I’ve just now read about "Catastrophe Theory" he is using a differing point of view than I do, but it does seem we are seeing the same phenomenon.

    This is a quote from Catastrophe Theory, followed by what I wrote a few weeks ago.

    Semantic Models
    In section 13.8 of Structural Stability and Morphogenesis, René Thom proposes the following definitions and their implications.
    Every object, or physical form, can be represented as an attractor of a dynamical system on a space of internal variables.
    Such an object is stable, and so can be recognized, only when the corresponding attractor is structurally stable.
    All creation or destruction of forms, or morphogenesis, can be described by the disappearance of the attractors representing the initial forms, and their replacement (by capture) by the attractors representing the final forms. This process, called catastrophe, can be described on a space of external variables.
    Every structurally stable morphological process is described by a structurally stable catastrophe, or a system of structurally stable catastrophes, on the space of external variables.
    Every natural process decomposes into structurally stable islands, the chreods. The set of chreods and the multidimensional syntax controlling their positions constitute the semantic model.

    When the chreod is considered as a word of this multidimensional language, the meaning (signification) of this word is precisely that of the global topology of the associated attractor (or attractors) and of the catastrophes that it (or they) undergo. In particular, the signification of a given attractor is defined by the geometry of its domain of existence on the space of external variables and the topology of the regulation catastrophes bounding that domain.
    One result of this is that the signification of a form (chreod) manifests itself only by the catastrophes that create or destroy it. This gives the axiom dear to the formal linguists: that the meaning of a word is nothing more than the use of the word; this is also the axiom of the "bootstrap" physicists, according to whom a particle is completely defined by the set of interactions in which it participates.” quote

    The Vesica Attractor

    I think I may have an analogy that can better illustrate this model, and explain the phases { vesica attractor }
    Here’s a little known fact……… one of the very first mediums that man developed to communicate with was light waves…… no kidding!
    A hundred thousand years before fiber optic cable man developed whites in his eyes so they could signal to one another thoughts……. by the subtle nuances expressed by the shape and intensity in these flashes of light. The eyes became the windows to the soul.
    Then as we all know we harnessed sound waves to communicate even more complex thoughts in language.

    We then did something completely fundamental to evolution and at the same time astonishing, we developed a way to capture and contained these waves!
    A simple clay tablet captured the sound and light of the universe into words.
    This manifested space held a world between worlds. This is the essences of the vesica attractor.

    A shared space for information to pass between two separate fields. An overlapping area of information focused into a central stable point.
    This point than emanates its own wave function to any that can read it. Today right at this very moment you are looking deeply into a vesica attractor. This computer is the direct result of that clay tablet.
    You are probably asking yourself that’s real interesting but what’s it got to do with your fossil find and your convoluted theory on evolution!

    Everything, this is the same process that created life itself, but instead of people being connected, the universe was connecting itself to itself the separate fields were the elemental particles representing by myriads of tiny vesica attractors [cells] emerging from the elemental quantum soup. The other field is the macrocosm of stars planets black holes all emanating a spectrum of waves. I believe light waves probably initiated the formation of the first photosynthetic cells.
    This is not what my manuscript deals with specifically, but I have been clear that life forms around a wave function.

    What my paper deals with specifically is a complex assemblages of eukaryote cells that form around water waves and oolitic spheres. These waves are still pulsing at this very moment as you breath in, and breath out, as your heart beats to this rhythm of a primordial ocean. This is a contained wave trapped in a circuit captured by billions of tiny vesica attractor in the form of a cellular matrix that also crystallized and capture the universe of light sound and memory.
    We not only capture and contain these waves, they are the fundamental forces that created us and sustains us.
    We are emanating connecting points, between the universe within and the universe all around us........ We are the universes clay tablet.
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  21. Apr 24, 2005 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    What do you mean with this?
    How do you come to the fact that it is based on a logarithmic curve, or phi geometry (and what does that mean)?
  22. Apr 24, 2005 #21
    I will let Rick explain it. Then refer to my previuos post on the "heterodyning"

    Heterodyning and Powers of Phi
    11/9/97 by Rick Andersen

    One of Dan Winter's weird and wonderful files caught my attention one day, when I was browsing his web site. He was making remarks about how waves can, when organized in a certain way, spiral inward toward a central zero-point in the same way that Lorenz attractors occur in Chaos theory. Tying together several concepts such as implosion, fractal embedding, compression, and wave (non)-interference based on the fact that Phi-ratioed waves can both add and multiply non-destructively, he wove his tale... My ham radio hobbyist antennas went up... What did he say about "both add and multiply?....
    Well, I checked, and it turns out to be very strange but true: Another one of Phi's many unusual traits is that it's the one ratio whose powers, when added together, generate the next higher in the series, automatically. Whoa.

    Now, you have to be a radio-head to appreciate some of this. But I'll clue you in. This has tie-ins to modulation-- specifically, Amplitude Modulation, in its balanced mode, which produces what is known as double-sideband, suppressed carrier modulation.

    Basically, when you mix two waves "linearly", you just sum their amplitudes together, point by point, so that the resulting wave is an algebraic sum of the original two waves components. If you have an oscilloscope you'll see a new wave which is the sum of the two originals. Oscilloscopes display a wave's "height" or "strength" or amplitude along the vertical axis of the screen, time along the horizontal; this is known as the time domain way of looking at waveforms.

    An alternative way is to look at a wave or sum of waves in the frequency domain, which is amplitude vs. frequency, rather than time. To do that you need a spectrum analyzer. The spectrum analyzer won't show you the sum of the waves, as did the 'scope. Instead, it shows you two "spikes", each one corresponding to the frequency of its original wave along a horizontal spectral axis. So the 'scope shows you a new wave formed by adding the two originals, and the spectrum analyzer shows you what's inside that summed wave, namely, the two original frequencies (that's why it's called an analyzer).

    Well, linear mixing is what a DJ does when he mixes his microphone with the music; each sound wave co-exists and mixes smoothly into a summation of the originals; this is known as superposition of waves, and in essence it says, "though these waves co-exist, yet they don't influence or control or change one another, though they do sum together."

    It turns out that this method won't work when you want to broadcast your voice over a radio signal "carrier" wave. To do that, you need to vary the overall intensity or amplitude of the carrier with the lower-frequency voice... you need to modulate the carrier's amplitude with the voice waveform. And the way to do that, mathematically, is to multiply the two waves together, instead of simply adding them. Just like we learned in school that you can multiply numbers by adding their powers or exponents, so when we add wave voltages against a nonlinear (logarithmic) background (in the PN-junction of a diode or transistor), we are actually doing the same thing as if we had multiplied them. Multiplication is nonlinear addition. In radio work this is called heterodyning.

    Now they are interacting with each other, big time. The output on the 'scope is a high-frequency carrier wave, intensity-modulated by a low-frequency voice pattern.

    What does this look like on a spectrum analyzer?

    Here is where we find something unexpected. The analyzer now shows four separate frequency spikes! When we measure their frequency, it turns out that the original two frequencies are there, plus a new one which is equal to the sum of the original frequencies (not amplitudes), and one more, like a mirror image, which is the difference of the two frequencies.

    We find that multiplying two waves together in the time domain is exactly the same as shifting frequencies up and down, simultaneously, in the frequency domain. These two new frequencies are called the upper- and lower-sideband, respectively. They appear whenever two or more waves intermodulate one another, and they are how low frequency audio waves get shifted up the spectrum to cluster around the carrier wave, which is way above the limit of audibility. This cluster of high (electromagnetic, not sonic) frequencies (the carrier, plus the upper and lower sidebands) is what gets transmitted out of the antenna of your favorite radio station. But on the 'scope, all you see is the sum of all three, which ends up looking like a point-by-point multiplication of the carrier and voice.

    Here's an example of AM frequency products:
    You play a 1KHz tone into your microphone; that audio tone modulates a 1 MHz carrier frequency. The 4 outputs from the modulator are
    1 KHz
    1 MHz
    1.001 MHz (the sum, or upper sideband)
    0.999 MHz (the difference, or lower sideband).

    The 1 KHz audio is too low in frequency to radiate from the antenna, so it is filtered out and the other 3 radio frequencies are transmitted.

    Notice, too, that if you were to increase your audio signal to 10 KHz, the upper sideband would move up to 1.01 MHz, and the lower would move down to .990 MHz. Thus, the closer the audio is to zero Hertz, the tighter the two sidebands cluster in against the carrier, and vice-versa.

    So as you can see, these new sideband frequencies are dependent solely on the addition and subtraction of the carrier and audio; there is no harmonic relationship at all between them.

    So what's Phi got to do with this?
    Phi possesses the strange property of being able to automatically generate its power series when heterodyned successively with its own next-higher or lower powers! I believe this fact is a key to many fascinating areas yet to be discovered. As far as I can tell, this trait is not shared by any other number. Dan Winter seems to be on the right track on this one, for sure.
    Powers of Phi
    Phi^0 = 1
    Phi^1 = 1.6180339
    Phi^2 = 2.6180339
    Phi^3 = 4.2360672
    Phi^4 = 6.8541004
    Phi^5 = 11.0901669
    ... etc...

    Now, what do you suppose happens when we take two frequencies, f1 = 1 unit, and f2 = a frequency that is Phi times larger, or f2 = 1.6180339, and modulate them-- nonlinearly mix them-- in an AM modulator? The two new frequencies are the sum, which is 2.6180339-- hey, that's the same as Phi^2, and the difference, which is .6180339-- hey, isn't that Phi to the -1th power? Yup, it is. So we stumble upon the very interesting fact that powers of Phi are automatically generated whenever we "heterodyne" or modulate two frequencies that are related by a ratio equal to Phi.

    If we use a slightly more developed form of AM modulator, we can suppress the carrier entirely (and the audio, too) and just get the sum and difference frequencies out. This is what is done in a balanced modulator, and this is called suppressed-carrier double-sideband transmission, just one step away from the single-sideband that Hams and CBers are familiar with.

    So here's what we can do: Wire up a string or sequence of balanced modulators; the next one will have the frequencies of Phi^1 and Phi^2 as inputs; the two outputs will be Phi^3 (USB) and Phi^0 (LSB). Feed this into the next one: Phi^2 and Phi^3 will give Phi^4 and Phi^1; etc. Eventually you could generate a very large series of frequencies related by the powers of Phi.

    Would this be a good mix to try with some alt-sci experiments involving plant growth, healing waveforms, vortex generation, etc.? Would this have any bearing on Dan Winter's gravity = Phi harmonic implosion ideas? On Tom Bearden's insistence that you need nonlinear mixing to accomplish scalar electromagnetics magic?
    How about Moray B. King's ideas in his book Tapping the Zero-Point Energy, where he describes a cascade of simple resonators with nonlinear breakover thresholds or switching, which is supposed to be able to shift high frequency energy down the spectrum into the lower frequencies, with attendant amplitude increase? Is this what living things do within their nonlinear cellular and nerve structure?

    What about trees-- do they, by their very fractal shape, act as energy sinks to the surrounding atmosphere, "pricking" the local electrostatic gradient with their branching twig structure, rooted mechanically and electrically at earth ground potential? Is the Phi distribution of frequencies/wavelengths analogous to the growth patterns of trees and other living things... because it is optimal for accumulating and translating energy from across the frequency spectrum? This question led to a brainstorm which resulted in the following illustration of what living things might be doing, and what we might need to do to construct a "coherer" of PHI-related frequencies and energies:

    And what if we were to rotate an acoustical field made up of Phi-related tones, or even white noise? Does the vortex/funnel shape, like a logarithmic curve, favor the Phi-ratioed frequencies by its very curvature?

    1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34.... how can a bunch of Fibonacci integers give rise to one of the strangest and most prevalent of the irrational numbers, Phi?....

    My feeling is, that when we really know how to tie Phi, Pi, and Epsilon together with music and geometry, all applied to wave structures, we will have found the keys to the very basis of the structuring of reality
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  23. Apr 24, 2005 #22


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Oh yea, lets parametrize the statistical formation of bonds through the use of phi. Lets even go so far as to say there is a hidden signature of our original "designer" - be it an alien species or god himself! Ha!

    How do you account for random mutations?

    You havent answered my argument about wavefunctions not applying to macromolecules. Please elaborate
  24. Apr 24, 2005 #23


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Why can't you give the concept yourself in a paragraph?
  25. Apr 24, 2005 #24
    I believe now, though this model, randomness in genetic controls are not the creative force in evolution. But rather self organization though pre-existing probabilities.

    A wave can be any rhythmic pulse of information though a medium size is not an issue.
    I will even go as for as to say that punctuated equilibrium is a wave of the same self ordering structure as our individual heart- circulatory system {refer to previous post}
    It would stand to reason that the central original archetype would act as an attractor node for the entire phyla, stabilizing the genetic code of a population with rhythmic pulses of information in intervals of time.

    "March 11, 2005 news releases | receive our news releases by email | science beat

    Fossil Records Show Biodiversity Comes and Goes
    Contact: Lynn Yarris (510) 486-5375, lcyarris@lbl.gov

    BERKELEY, CA – A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation. The analysis, performed by researchers with the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) and the University of California at Berkeley, has withstood thorough testing so that confidence in the results is above 99-percent.

    “What we’re seeing is a real and very strong signal that the history of life on our planet has been shaped by a 62 million year cycle, but nothing in present evolutionary theory accounts for it,” said Richard Muller, a physicist who holds joint appointments with Berkeley Lab’s Physics Division, and UC Berkeley’s Physics Department. “While this signal has a huge presence in biodiversity, it can also be seen in both extinctions and originations.”
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  26. Apr 24, 2005 #25


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is all a whole bunch of air: you are not saying anything of meaning and it is quite frustrating.

    You say biological systems are based on a wave function. What do you mean by wave function and what do you mean by a biological system. The question is quite simple, there is no merit in quoting someone talking about spectral analyzers.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook