Black hole music thread in other forum

  • Thread starter marcus
  • Start date

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

In the constants chart (NIST), I see

"planck length" = 1.61624e-35 meter

....


LPF
hi LPF,

I think you made a typo copying from the NIST site

I corrected it, see if what you find at NIST for planck length
is this

1.61624 x 10-35 meters
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
What this means to me
(I need something familiar and physical to relate to
besides the numbers)
is that E33 times the planck length is
the width of my little finger at the joint
which happens to be right about 1.616 centimeters

just kidding, I cant measure it that accurately, but
somewhere around 1.5 to 1.7 centimeters, so that's my
concrete idea of 1033 times the planck length.


when planck introduced this length and the other units, the temperature, the mass, etc
back in 1899
he called them "natuerliche Einheiten"
natural unities
or natural units

since then a lot of other quantities have been proposed as
"natural" mostly related to particular objects like an electron
or a proton or a hydrogen atom-----but planck's do not depend on
any one chosen object, they are universal. So when I say natural units I am referring to planck's system from back in 1899
(which is what NIST lists)

strange that a unit of length would be so tiny that you have to scale it up by 10^33 before it is big enough to measure everyday stuff with
but this is the unit that seems built into nature
good to know about it
lets discuss it some more!
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
you remember the universal unit of frequency
the planck frequency
very high
we compared ordinary pitches to it and
found that official A was about 1.5e-40
middle D was about e-40

well, the planck length is the wavelength
corresponding to that frequency

that's maybe a good way to think of it

the frequency is very high so it has a very short wavelength


physical quantities are related to each other by physical laws
so if you pick a frequency you get the other quantities for free
you get a length, and an energy, and a mass (from the energy by
E = mc^2) and so on.

or if you choose a unit of energy, you get the other things

or if you choose a length unit, you get the other things

it is a coherence of physical quantitites

we just happened to approach it from the side of frequency and musical pitch
 
191
0
Marcus,

Thanks for cleaning up my paste spillage. I see I need to update my handbook (h=6.626e-34) this is now 6.616e-35? or these are not the same? (h and planck length)

I wondered about the term "compton". You were using it in values with mass, and I had this krypton 86 orange-red line of 6057.802 angstrom (605nm) that I understood to be a set point of reference for "color" of wavelength. Points of reference in the context of planck values - reducing concepts to their most basic and fundamental values. Similar or separate? (compton and planck)

I am very interested in producing a loom (model) with you to better understand the weave pattern in the fabric of our Universe.

Studying the strings/fibers is fine, but at some point, you need to test your knowledge and try to make a universal rug, in the same manner as Nature.

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16


I wondered about the term "compton".
...
I hope you agree that it is congenial to go at things bit by bit and not try to solve all the problems of the world in one resounding statement. So about "compton"

It refers to Arthur Holly Compton and something he noticed in 1923.
An american. back in 1923 most of the important people in physics were european so that is already a little unusual. I guess they had haircuts like in the old PBS series "Forsythe Saga" or the overdone recent movie "Titanic". Holly is a pretty good middle name too.

the compton length associated with a particle

it depends only on the mass of the particle, so the length is different for particles with different mass.

in planck units the formula is simply 1/M

more massive particles have shorter comptons

less massive particles have longer comptons
(has something to do with their being "more spread out" harder to pin down to one particular location)

First let us be thankful for the surprise that a particle, which is a point-like thing, could have a length associated with it at all!!!

Then let us wonder that a man in St.Louis Missouri or Chicago or somewhere like that, with nothing but an Xray tube that he could squirt Xrays at a piece of metal with, could find such a strange thing as a length associated with a particle.

It is sort of like a wavelength, and people call it the particle's "Compton wavelength", but where's the wave? It isnt exactly the wavelength of any wave.

I havent said what the compton of a particle is, have I :smile:
why not just spade up the ground a little and talk about that later?
it is a good measure of how difficult it is to localize something

(small-mass things are difficult to localize, maybe this has something to do with an as-yet-not-understood character of space, so far it is just embodied in ad hoc laws of quantum mechanics which
are ultimately, well, ad hoc)
 
191
0
Marcus,

Thanks for the answers, and yes, let the details rest in the soil for now.


Back to fundamental units.

You said "the frequency is very high so it has a very short wavelength", refering to 1.5e-40 . This seems to be a very tiny frequency, unless it is 1.5e+40? Am I taking this wrong?


LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

Thanks for the answers, and yes, let the details rest in the soil for now.


Back to fundamental units.

You said "the frequency is very high so it has a very short wavelength",...

LPF
I mean the frequency One
it is an extremely high frequency
it is the unit frequency in planck, or natural, units
it is 1 radian per planck unit of time.

not since the big bang has light been seen with such a high
frequency as this
but cosmologists say at big bang it was very hot
so that light could have higher frequency than Xrays even
and shorter wavelength than Xrays or anything we now know

the light in the core of the sun is Xray light because
the temp is million of conventional degrees

but even that Xray light in the core of the sun is
freqency e-25
compared with frequency One

that is why I say One is a high frequency.
the frequency of light in sun core is
[tex]\frac{1}{10000000000000000000000000}[/tex]
of the universe frequency.

Universe frequency has very short wavelength, called "planck length".
the higher the freq, the shorter the wvlngth. Goes by reciprocals.
So wavelength of suncore Xrays is a big number e25 of planck lengths.
 
Last edited:

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Today suggested thought topic could be
that the number 1 can refer to a very high speed
the speed of light

just because 1 is not a big number does not mean that in some system of units it cannot name the highest speed

when 1 is the name of the highest speed then the speed of sound
in air is around
[tex]\frac{1}{1000000}[/tex]

and the speed you drive on the highway is around

[tex]\frac{1}{10000000}[/tex]

(I realize this is elementary to you but doesnt hurt to remember it occasionally)

And by same token in some system of units (again I mean planck, or natural as he called them) the number 1 can refer to a very high temp, or a very high freq.

Just because 1 is a small number we all know does not mean it cannot be the highest imaginable temperature or frequency

and then room temperature, that you probably are in right now, is
2e-30

[tex]\frac{2}{1000000000000000000000000000000}[/tex]

and the temperature at the core of the sun, where the energy is made that you digested when you ate lunch, is e-25

[tex]\frac{1}{10000000000000000000000000}[/tex]
 
191
0
Marcus,

"I mean the frequency One
it is an extremely high frequency
it is the unit frequency in planck, or natural, units
it is 1 radian per planck unit of time."

I'm with you now. One cycle being completed in the least amount of time possible in angular increments. (nothing faster?)

Would "planck wavelength" then be One cycle in the least amount of space? (width of vibration, so - nothing smaller?)


I'm not sure of the correct equation, BUT...

IF frequency = 299,792,458/wavelength
AND wavelength = 299,792,458/frequency

can this be simplified with One?

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Would "planck wavelength" then be One RADIAN in the least amount of space? (width of vibration, so - nothing smaller?)


I'm not sure of the correct equation, BUT...

IF frequency = 299,792,458/wavelength
AND wavelength = 299,792,458/frequency

can this be simplified with one?

-------------

Correct
In planck units it is a fact that

frequency = 1/wavelength

wavelength = 1/frequency

---------------------------------

however to communicate easily in planck units
(since they are based on hbar (not h) and angular formats
for freq. and wavelength

to communicate easily, one should get used to
angular format

so the wvlngth is the distance thru which the wave accomplishes
one radian of phase
-------------------------

now a "cycle" which is a concept on the backshelf
equals 2 pi radians

so the wave accomplishes a full cycle in 2 pi of what we are calling
its wavelength

somepeople call it the "reduced wavelength" or the angular wavelength.
and may write it with a small greek lambda with a bar thru it
or call it "lambda-bar"

its tough that there should be this divergence in language but
one gets used to it
---------------------------

my solution is never to mean anything else but angular freq, when I say freq.
and never to mean anything else but angular (or reduced) wavelength when I say wavelength.
-----------------------

your basic idea is right and good
namely

lambdabar = 1/omega

omega = 1/lambdabar

the only possible confusion involves a wayward factor of 2 pi
which is really just a redherring, not a substantial codfish.
 
Last edited:
191
0
Marcus,

I think that you suggested an idea to look at the visible spectrum in natural units. I will become more acquainted with radians (angular format) this way.


*Roughly*:

red(4.06e14) = 1.4616e+17 radians ??


*color is subject to perceptive interpretation*

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

I think that you suggested an idea to look at the visible spectrum in natural units. I will become more acquainted with radians (angular format) this way.
...


If you give me three colors---telling me the cyclic wavelengths in nanometers:

like
"red, 600 nanometers per cycle"

----then I will translate them for you. And we do not have to use my translations. If you like thinking of nanometers per cycle you can keep on forever thinking in those terms, which is fine. But I will be glad to translate so you can see what the other format would be like


like
"600 nanometers to get thru one cycle" means (divide by 2 pi)
600/2pi nanometers to get thru one radian of phase

because a radian is just 1/2pi of a full cycle (it is a different measure of phase change than counting full cycles)

so whipping out the old calculator that is 95.5 nanometers per radian!

now I always remember that e28 is about one sixth of a micron

more exactly e28 is 0.1616 micron (see? about one sixth!)

or equivalently e28 is 161.6 nanometers.

But I want my red color to be 95.5 nanometers! so its wavelength is less than e28

some fraction 95.5/161.6 of e28

WOW it is 0.591 e28
that is the same as 591 e25

look what happened. I started with 600 nanometers per cycle
and I wound up with 591 of the e25 multiple of planck length.

Since 600 is rather close to 591 I can in a crude sense trade
nanometers per cycle for e25zes ("e-twentyfivezes") of planck lengths per radian.

whatever numbers you give me to translate, your three favorite colors or whatever, the translation will be roughly the same numbers (only a little less, as 591 is less than 600) and it will be in terms of
e25 planck length units (angular format).

hmmmm
could be confusing
you might want to stick with nanometers I dont care
but thats my offer
three free translations, as long as they are pretty colors
 
Last edited:
191
0
Marcus,

Yet more clarity.


OK 3 colors:

730nm red
547nm green
460nm blue


LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

Yet more clarity.


OK 3 colors:

730nm red
547nm green
460nm blue


LPF
fair enough, more accurate translation will have to wait till later this evening or tomorrow since I have a chorus rehearsal but
we can do a quick and dirty because

600 nm to get thru a cycle corresponds to 591 e25 planck to get thru a radian

so I just have to multiply each number by 591/600

719
539
453

so the angular wavelengths, expressed as multiples of planck length (the tiny natural length unit built into the world)
are

RED: 719 e25 planck lengths
GREEN: 539 e25 planck lengths
BLUE: 453 e25 planck lengths

And if you want the frequencies of red, green blue
as a fraction of the One frequency
then you just do reciprocal (one over the number)

That is, the blue frequency is
1/(453e25)

I put 453e25 in my cackle-ator and press the "one over" key and

BLUE FREQUENCY: 2.2e-28

well more later
 
191
0
Marcus,

What role does lambdabar x omega play in this view?

Natural unit of speed of light?

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

What role does lambdabar x omega play in this view?

Natural unit of speed of light?

LPF
you got it. since they are reciprocals
if you multiply them you get one
and that is the speed of light

i have to go to sing otherwise wd be fun to talk more
 
191
0
Marcus,

I am getting .999845, .99941, .999774, .9966, etc. for planck C. Is this ok? In the chart I made, the same sort of thing happens with specific frequencies' speed.

They also follow the same pattern for being 70 rows apart from the other values used in the chart. Is there a significance for 70 generations (x2 value)? (or 1/2 value in other direction)


How was singing?

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16
Marcus,

How was singing?

LPF
singing was great
have you listened to any of the socalled "major choral works"?
eg. Mozart Requiem
Mozart Great Mass in C minor
Haydn Lord Nelson Mass (D minor)
Bach Mass in B minor
Handel Messiah
Beethoven Mass in C major
Schubert Mass number 6.
....

my chorus, the community chorus I sing in,
is currently learning the Haydn Lord Nelson Mass
wonderful experience

shall I refine those translations of colors, or is
what I already did accurate enough?
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
what I calculated from your "nanometers per cycle" figures was

RED: 719 e25 planck lengths
GREEN: 539 e25 planck lengths
BLUE: 453 e25 planck lengths

I think those are accurate as far as they go but they seem
awfully finicky. I would be inclined to round them off

RED: 720 e25 planck lengths
GREEN: 540 e25 planck lengths
BLUE: 450 e25 planck lengths

I dont think the human eye could distinguish between
the color 719 and the color 720 (e25 planck lengths)

but something you said suggested that you may have some
use in mind for the numbers which requires very fine accuracy.
If so, tell me and I will transcribe more decimal places.
 
191
0
Marcus,

No, I don't think more accuracy is necessary.

While we are near the subject of music, do you know an equation that describes what is happening in three notes of a chord?

ie - a G chord of

note 1 = 392 (G)
note 2 = 494 (B)
note 3 = 294 (D)

(can composite waveforms be described by a single #)?

LPF
 

marcus

Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,713
783
Originally posted by 8LPF16

...
While we are near the subject of music, do you know an equation that describes what is happening in three notes of a chord?

ie - a G chord of

note 1 = 392 (G)
note 2 = 494 (B)
note 3 = 294 (D)

(can composite waveforms be described by a single #)?
...
not by a single number
or at least not very usefully by a single number

do you have a piano or electronic keyboard?

on an elec.kybd. you can play the same note, say middle G,
and select different "instruments" or voices for it
a different voice is a different mix of OVERTONES
which are higher freqs that the string also vibrates at

a sound is almost never just the fundamental freq
it always has a mix of overtones
like not just ω but also a blend of different amplitudes of
2ω
3ω
4ω
5ω
.....

the mathematics of harmony are basically pretty simple namely
that notes in harmony share a lot of the same overtones


so "do" and "sol" are in ratio 3/2
so twice "sol" is the same as thrice "do"
so they share that overtone, and a lot more too

and "do" and "mi" are in ratio 5/4
therefore 4x "sol" is the same as 5x "do"
and consequently they share that overtone, and a lot more too

so the notes fit together comfortably in their overtone series

the thing that makes harmony is simple fractional ratios like
5/4 and 3/2 and 2/1
as everybody in the italian town of Crotona should know well
so did I not understand the question?
 
191
0
Marcus,

OK.
The answer is "not by a single number or at least not very usefully by a single number", I agree. Even the single note values that I gave you could be reduced. Four more octaves of reduction if we stay in our range of hearing (by 1/2 value every octave). There is no scientific reason to stop there, and we know this goes further. In fact, it can be taken to its' Natural smallest unit, right?

"Is that a planck in your pants, or are you just glad to be talking about RESONANCE?"


Yet, when one begins to approach mastery in making chords, this "single #" becomes second nature to us. Unmistakable. Automatic. Fundamental.

What is happening here? Certainly something as "predictable" as chord progression deserves its' own math. The Calculus of Gravity. Mere lack of "existance" didn't slow Newton down in communicating his vision, and he left us to ponder the results of this new vision.

When I drop in to conversations between people who are studying the physical world, they seem to all be talking about this. Yet, they do not know how to derive this new math. So let us not wander from this topic without some experimentation.

By using RATIOs like 5/4, 4/3, 2/1, it allows the model to be folded up and taken with and communicated with other musicians. If we were using math instead of chords, we would use the decimal numbers that these ratios represent: 1.25, 1.33, 1.5, etc.

First, a word on the Root, or tonic note. This is the General Relativity of music scales. Simply put, the rule starts from where YOU start. All other particles will wait until there is a tonic note to allow themselves to be defined; until then they ALL have resonant potential. This note fixes the value in time (root), and creates the "perspective" needed to determine resonance.

Step One = f (to be determined by perspective of user)
Step Two = 1.125f
Step Three= 1.25f
Step Four = 1.33f
Step Five = 1.5f
Step Six = 1.66f
Step Seven= 1.875f
Step Eight= 2f

By the way, because in music, we call the values in 1f and 2f the same, it is intuitive to think of these values in angular format, so that you are returning to same start point:wink: . Also note that there are SEVEN major notes, the 8th is just 2x the 1st.

What two groups come immediately to mind when seeing the steps of the scale laid out in "math"? Five #'s are "fast terminating", and whole # fractions of EIGHT. (hence the name "octave") The other two are non-terminating, and whole # fractions of THREE (and do not resonate with the 1/8 values).

Because step Eight has special rules already (it is neutral in relativity to tonic...it is the same, AND it is different), you should be able to see a "hidden" value at step Eight. It is 3/3, to finish the sequence of double end value. In decimals, this is .9999
Step Eight then, is quite a chameleon. It can be 8/8, 3/3, .9999, 2f, and, for the NEXT scale, the next 1f.

How to make a Triad. (chord) Pick starting note (tonic), figure value at step Three (mediant), and step Five (dominant). From previous example: G392, B494, and D588. I used D294 (1 octave up @ 1/2 value) because my finger can reach it! This is not necessary on the piano, it was invented and perfected during the time that the "equidistant" scale was being cooked up around 1690. You have to study the waveform of these 3 notes to fully understand why they resonate. The first note can never be overcome be the others because of the natural speed limit of C. They can only add to its' value (amplitude/pitch) without fundamentally changing the tonic. So the "sort of answer" we both agreed on is something like "a G chord with a base 392 is 392.4597846(yadda yadda)" Only the value to the right of the decimal point would change.

Great! you say, but where does this go?

Let's look at the Triad of light values that we used earlier.
Red 719
Green 539
Blue 453

Now, we too shall jump ship from the Kepler Galley to the Frigate of Andre Werkmeister. The equidistant scale uses 12 equal half-steps of 1.05946 (12sqrt2). In this format, the # 13 (intervals) is used as the neutral value of 2f in 12 half-steps, instead of 8 intervals for 7 whole steps. We will also divide the 7 "whole" colors into 12 even steps.

We know that these 3 values create the Triad we call "white light". From understanding waveforms and resonance, we must assume then, that this triad starts with a value that is white light. It's too bad that Science does not have a value for this. With some logical extensions, we can go 13 half-steps smaller from Red, and end at 359 planck lengths (365nm), which is the first resonant value of UV in the next octave past visible light. As said before, we can not just dis-allow the values of IR and UV in our search for better understanding. This is saying that the 1/2 value of red, while in proximity, is indistinguishable from red, yet because of planck speed, can not be caught or changed by the other resonant values. We call this note red because we only perceive ONE octave of color, none are repeated in higher or lower form. If we saw one more color up into UV, we would have no red (as is the case for many other eye bearing life forms). A curved eye (all eyes share common evolution)will always have the same limitations because of the angular format of the wave. Isn't it fascinating that our totally dissimilar ears have the same limitation spread out over 10 octaves?

To shorcut the rest of the story, by taking the natural commonality of vibration, and simply extending the 13 interval scale from music up to the e-7 "row of values" of light, all known colors can be produced and explained by triads of notes (chords).

The commonality of vibration is what I call your system of natural values. Take the "/1sec" out of the equation to simplify, and your left with "planck" values. This is what the chart is made from. Not frequency, not wavelength, yet both are there, under a planck.

Take a longer look at https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13481


LPF
 
Last edited:

Related Threads for: Black hole music thread in other forum

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
851
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
595
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
4K
Top