# Harmonic Vibration Hypothesis

1. Jul 28, 2006

### Psykostx

Can anyone with a stronger math/physics backround than me prove/disprove this....

Attractive and repelling forces which form molecular, and atomic structure (mass) do so because of "musical" harmonies between oscillations. AKA if you plot atomic vibrations as sine waves, do molecular structures resonate with harmonies of these oscillations...even possibly explaining gravity and other unexplained forces?

2. Jul 28, 2006

Staff Emeritus

See quantum mechanics: everything is based on quantum amplitudes: complex functions which can be represented as "wave functions". But note the complex numbers; the vibrations don't happen in spacetime. What happens in spacetime is variations in probability of things to happen.

Also recall that Fourier proved that just about any function can be represented as a sum of waves.

3. Jul 28, 2006

### loseyourname

Staff Emeritus
In physical chemistry, you learn how to represent orbitals and molecular bonds as patterns of wave diffraction, which does explain chemical behavior, but it doesn't explain physical forces, which operate at a subatomic level.

4. Jul 28, 2006

### Psykostx

Wow thank both of you, I grasp the concept completely even thought I'm lightyears behind your expertise and reasoning.

SelfAdjoint, I understand, but are these probability changes seen as probability changes because we can't measure these ultra-fast vibrations accurately enough to decipher them? I'm a musician at heart and a physicist in my dreams. Another way of explaining what I was asking is "could molecules (or atoms) be considered 'musical chords' formed by individual 'notes' (observable through distinct [however complex] patterns of resonance)?" I think it would be way cool if there was a description of the universe derived from musical theory and geometrical music theory that formed a working model...

BTW geometrical music theory (i don't even know the real word, but it exists) is an ancient mystical technique of using geometry to write musical patterns...very interesting stuff although its a very rare topic indeed with a handful (Probably less than a thousand) of people actually putting it to practice as it is rather MIND BOGGLING.

5. Jul 28, 2006

Staff Emeritus
No, quantum mechanics doesn't work that way; the idea you propose is what is called a "hidden variables" theory, and modern work has ruled them out.

1. In about 1940, Einstein, Podolski, and Rosen (EPR) published a thought experiment in which they introduced the idea now called entangled particles. They claimed their experiment, based on entanglement, could falsify quantum mechanics as other physicsts of the time thought of it.

2. In the 1960s John Bell proved a theorem tightening up the EPR proposal and showing that QM predicts a higher than random correlation between the properties of entangled, separated particles, whereas classical hidden-variable theories predict the random average value, This last is what your "vibrate too fast to measure" hypothesis would do.

3. Then Aspect and others found a way to actually perform these thought experiments and did them. What the experiments show is the quantum values of the correlations happen, not the average value. Since this experiment has been now repeated many times with variations in the details, and always produces the pro-QM result, physicists now believe that nature just is not described by hidden variables.

Not to snow you, there are die hards and quibblers who seek to criticize the experiments, usually focussing on Aspect's first one, which did have some problems, But there are now a slew of results where ASpect's problems are cleared up or the experimental layout is completely different from Aspect's (the delayed choice quantum eraser, for example).

6. Jul 28, 2006

### Psykostx

So on a quantum level, particles can vibrate with dissonance and still exist in the same atom? And atoms can vibrate with dissonance and still exist in the same molecule? Or.. the vibrations aren't actually vibrations, just random phenomenon which are irrelevant to the physical properties/structure of a substance?

7. Jul 28, 2006

Staff Emeritus
Did you read what I wrote? The "vibrations" are not happening in the atoms or molecules, they're "happening" off in some place that physicsts can't agree on. Maybe they're just vibrating information. What happens in the atoms and molecules is that electrons are represented by probability distributions, instead of being little balls. Chemists have been dealing successfully with this for like 70 years.

8. Jul 28, 2006

### Psykostx

I know that electrons are not "little balls" or solid shells, etc. All I'm asking is that is there a cohesive pattern between the motion represented by probability distributions in atoms of the same molecule?

9. Jul 31, 2006

### Canute

Psykostx - I also am more musician than physicist, and think I see what you're getting at. I wonder if the connection between the energy levels of random quantum drums and the harmonic properties of Riemann's non-trivial zeros is relevant here. I don't understand much about either, but to me it seems to suggest some sort of link between the harmonic series and quantum behaviour.

Canute

10. Jul 31, 2006

Staff Emeritus
Hidden variables theories as such are ruled out. This includes all theories where quantum probabilities are thought to arise as statistical averages of underlying classical processes. It is a fact that classical statistics cannot reproduce quantum statistics (different logics - this is not a conclusion of the Bell-Aspect results but a deduction from first principles of both quantum and classical statistics. It goes back to von Neumann).

Fans of Bohm's pilot wave theory have been quick to point out that it is not a hidden variables theory, and is not covered by Bell's theorem. Indeed, since it frankly violates relativistic covariance, it isn't an example of the classical case Bell considered. Famously, its predictions in the nonrelativistic world match QM'S and therefore it predicts the higher correlations of entangled particles too.

Last edited: Jul 31, 2006
11. Aug 1, 2006

### Canute

That clarifies things. Thanks.