Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Harmonics of the Universe

  1. Feb 12, 2004 #1
    Dear Members of Physics Forums Cosmology

    Let me introduce myself. My name is Ray Tomes and after a career in computer software development and computer modelling I have spent about 15 years in full time study of cycles in many different disciplines including astronomy, geology, biology, physics, history, economics.

    As a result I found that many different disciplines have the same particular periods of cycles present and that the common cycle periods are often related to each other by small whole numbers, particularly products and powers of 2 and 3. It turned out that this same pattern had been found before by a number of researchers, most notably Ed Dewey who formed the Foundation for the Study of Cycles. I set out to solve the problem of where this pattern came from.

    In accepted physics, electromagnetism and gravity are non-linear wave equations because in GR all energy affects the metric of space. Studying non-linear systems it became clear that any 3D standing wave structure must develop harmonics which are exact fractions of the original wave. When it is realised that these harmonics are also standing waves and so also develop harmonics, it allows the calculation of an amazing pattern of energy by frequency from the one simple principle. Let me state the principle:

    The universe is a standing wave which develops harmonically related waves and each of these does the same.

    From this a calculation may be done of how many different ways each harmonic may be formed, which may be expected to translate into how much energy each different harmonic frequency will have:


    _______2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9_10_11_12_13_14_15_16_...

    1_-->__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1__1_...
    2_-->________1_____1_____1_____1_____1_____1_____1
    3_-->______________1________1________1________1
    4_-->____________________2___________2___________2
    5_-->__________________________1______________1
    6_-->________________________________3
    7_-->______________________________________1
    8_-->____________________________________________4
    ..._etc
    Total__1__1__2__1__3__1__4__2__3__1__8__1__3__3__8_...



    This table shows for each frequency of harmonic which additional frequencies it will lose energy to (through the non-linearity of the wave equation). At the bottom the total shows the total number of ways that each harmonic is formed. For example the 4th harmonic is formed in 2 ways, as 4 and as 2x2. At the left each harmonic is fed back in with energy proportional to the number of ways that it was produced. So we see that the 12th harmonic gets 2 units of contribution from the 4th harmonic.

    The results of this calculation are not dependant on any arbitrary constants or parameters of physics as is the case with most physics equations - it is pure maths. However it does relate closely to the universe that we observe.

    Here is the pattern of energy predicted for harmonics 2 to 1000000. The common ratios of 2 and 3 are clearly seen as well as other "musical" relationships.

    [​IMG]

    When the calculations are done to very high order, it is found that the pattern of observed cycles with many ratios of 2 and 3 is formed and in addition a very strong harmonic is predicted for 34560 (equal to 2^8*3^3*5) and for certain other harmonics which are close to powers of that number. We may say roughly that exceptionally strong harmonics are predicted for 10^(4.5*n). These harmonics are expected to divide both space and time in these proportions.

    The actual universe fits this distance scale rather well with the sequence: hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, ?, ?, cells, atoms, nucleons. (quarks?). No other explanation for these different obvious scales of distance in the universe has ever been offered from a fundamental theory.

    Furthermore, at each scale a detailed structure of relatively strong frequencies (or distance periodicities) are predicted and many of these had already been discovered prior to this theory (but without explanation) and others since.

    For a more detailed explanation of how this "Harmonics Theory" came about and its successful predictions, see:
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~ray.tomes/story.htm

    It is my view that any fundamental cosmological theory that has not recognised this pattern of energy by frequency as a logical consequence of non-linear waves acting over time, cannot hope to succeed in explaining the many levels of structure in the universe without many arbitrary and unrelated rules and parameters.

    I am happy to answer any questions or discuss the ideas with you.

    Regards
    Ray Tomes
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 15, 2004 #2
    It is disappointing to post a message giving a method of explaining the major scales of structure that exist in the universe, something never done by any other theory, and to not get a single reply.

    Have I not explained things well enough for people to understand?

    Or do people just prefer to argue over little philosophical points that arise from unclear usage of words rather than to actually understand the mechanisms of the universe?

    From the Harmonics Theory I have made more than a dozen explanations and predictions, most of which have now been tested although some will have to wait some years yet. Just some of these are listed:

    Explanations:

    1. Periodicity in redshifts, of 12 periodicities reported by W G Tifft, 11 match with the 12 predictions of the Harmonics Theory in the same range. These include 144.3, 120.3, 72.15, 48.10, 36.08, 24.05, 18.04, 12.03, 9.019, 8.017, 6.012, 4.008, 3.006, 2.672 km/s.

    2. Geological cycle periods observed at 586.24, 293.12, 146.56, 73.28, 36.64 million years.

    3. Mass extinction period of 26.65 million years.

    4. Biological, Astronomical, Economic and other common cycle periods explained - all periods in years:

    55520 27760
    9253 4626 2313 1157
    3084 1542 771.0
    1028 514
    171.3
    (*13)
    4270 2135 1068 533.8
    711.7 355.9 177.9 88.97 44.48 22.24 11.12
    59.31 29.66 14.83 7.414
    19.77 9.885 4.943
    (*5)
    427.0 213.5 106.8 53.38 26.69
    142.3 71.17 35.59 17.79 8.897 4.448 2.224
    23.72 11.86 5.931 2.966 1.483 0.7414
    7.908 3.954 1.977 .9885 .4943 .2471
    .6590 .3295 .1648 .08238
    (*7)
    3.389 1.695 .8473 .4237 .2118
    .5649 .2824 .1412 .07061 .03530 .01765

    Predictions tested.

    5. Stellar distance quantisation with distance bonds of 4.45, 5.93, 8.90, 11.86 light years.

    6. Supergalactic clusters form a cubic lattice.

    7. New particle predicted in 1994 with mass of 34.76 Mev, found by KARMEN in 1995.

    Predictions yet to be tested.

    8. Stellar accelerations to maintain the stellar bond lengths. This is capable of being tested now using the same data that has discovered about 100 planets in the last decade.

    9.That the universe is much larger than and much older than the Hubble scale.

    Ray Tomes
     
  4. Feb 16, 2004 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    hi ray,
    i have often wondered if our universe could be modeled
    on two interacting "waves", producing harmonics that
    would marry to the electronic properties of particles,
    and that maybe there is a primary "frequency of the
    universe", i can see that this is not what you are
    implying, i just thought i could ask what you think.
     
  5. Feb 16, 2004 #4
    We know that waves can destroy or build each other patterns.

    If we take the big bang model than non-linearity is the name of the game in the beginning of the universe ( http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/inflat.html ).

    Like the butterfly effect in chaos theory, the observed space-time fabric got most of its properties In the nonlinear inflation event that can be shown in the link above.

    So please let me ask you, does your theory try to find some invariant periodic wave patterns that survived the big bang, and know they are all over the observed universe in many scales of it (micro and macro)?

    If yes, then do you thing that our universe is fractal by nature, and we are as its observers are constructed from compressed wave patterns of almost all frequencies that can be found in our observed universe ?
     
  6. Feb 16, 2004 #5
    Hi Organic

    You wrote "... does your theory try to find some invariant periodic wave patterns that survived the big bang ...?"

    I think that the big bang is wrong, and that the universe is vastly older that 10^10 years. Otherwise the cycles patterns that do exist in nature could not have formed. If the universe did bounce and produce periodic bangs then that would also suffice.

    You also wrote ".. do you thing that our universe is fractal by nature, and we are as its observers are constructed from compressed wave patterns of almost all frequencies that can be found in our observed universe ?"

    A wonderful question. The pattern produced by the harmonics is never repeating, but tantalisingly close. That is why we see an inverse square law over different scales produce different but somewhat similar patterns. Each of an atom, a solar system and a galaxy have a central core and revolving matter, but the configurations vary. The changing pattern of primes in the harmonic ratios could be the explanation.

    If you are asking whether life has similar structures to the universe as a whole but at a smaller scale, then that is something that I too have thought about. It seems a reasonable idea, but in the harmonics theory the similarity would be incomplete, which would explain why people can never get it all right.

    Regards

    Ray
     
  7. Feb 16, 2004 #6
    Wolfram wrote "i have often wondered if our universe could be modeled on two interacting "waves", producing harmonics that would marry to the electronic properties of particles, and that maybe there is a primary "frequency of the universe", i can see that this is not what you are implying, i just thought i could ask what you think."

    I don't know if I fully understand your question. Let me take a detour first.

    Because the harmonics theory predicts that strong structures appear at scales of about 10^4.5 in both time and space, it also leads to the same scales in velocity. The sequence:
    light, sound, nerves/heat, ocean currents, continental drift ...
    fit to this pattern quite well.

    In that case, there is the possibility of "fields" beyong light at the beginning. It has occurred to me that electromagnetism may not be the first such field in which case it would be the result of interactions of some more basic wave construct of the universe. However there is really no evidence for this (but as someone said no evidence for is not evidence against).

    In the harmonics theory the primary frequency is not a high frequency, but an extremely low one. The universe forms top down not bottom up. The big bang has big problems with large scale structures having existed for too long. They are fully expected in the harmonics theory and vastly more ancient than the big bang says.

    Regards
    Ray
     
  8. Feb 17, 2004 #7
    Ray,


    Finally, awareness of the pattern!

    It is in the characteristics of being Human too. After all, what do you think caused recognition of the existing pattern? Our minds are "hard wired" to recognise it, but few people exercise this skill.
    Would you have seen it without your studies on the computer?

    You said "In the harmonics theory the primary frequency is not a high frequency, but an extremely low one. The universe forms top down not bottom up."

    We started at the other end! Look at how many key theories base themselves from looking at the "bottom up".

    I am working on defining the form of a photon with this pattern as a key element. Its' interaction with gravity is also dealt with.


    LPF
     
  9. Feb 17, 2004 #8
    Since light and gravity travel in 299792458 m/s,
    There universe is built of THOUGHT units within wich gravity rules.

    If one universe happens to be cold and empty, the ether in it could fall down to another energylevel. This could or could not be following the laws of statistic.
     
  10. Feb 17, 2004 #9
    Hi LPF

    You wrote "Finally, awareness of the pattern!"

    LPF: "It is in the characteristics of being Human too. After all, what do you think caused recognition of the existing pattern? Our minds are "hard wired" to recognise it, but few people exercise this skill."

    It is fascinating because the pattern is extremely musical (after all Pythagoras recognised the many ratios of 2 and 3). Some great composers have stated that they do not create the music but just listen to what is already there. The Universe is nothing other than a giant musical instrument.

    LPF: "Would you have seen it without your studies on the computer?"

    The existence of cycles and the pattern of proportions of 2 and 3 between them were found by other researchers without the aid of computers as well as myself with computers. The harmonics theoretical pattern can be determined to be musical by hand calculations, but only really be fully explored with computers. Especially the 10^4.5 big ratios between major structures.

    LPF: You said "In the harmonics theory the primary frequency is not a high frequency, but an extremely low one. The universe forms top down not bottom up."

    LPF: We started at the other end! Look at how many key theories base themselves from looking at the "bottom up".

    Absolutely. And there is no reason based on any good argument for this. It is just a blind assumption. In fact in spiritual circles it is understood to be the other way around. As above, so below.

    LPF: I am working on defining the form of a photon with this pattern as a key element. Its' interaction with gravity is also dealt with.

    In the harmonics theory, energy is always moving to finer scales. This has the result of increasing the mass of particles at the Hubble rate. That gradual shift does correctly explain both the red shift (so that is why I do not believe in the big bang) and the strength of gravity. Gravity is an imbalance between the inwards and outwards parts of a spherical standing wave that is each particle. The out wave is weaker by 1 part in 10^40 because of the increase in mass. Gravity really does suck.

    Regards
    Ray
     
  11. Feb 17, 2004 #10
    Ray, assuming your assertions are true, could this explain such fundamental things as certain particles absorbing and reflecting various wavelengths of light? Could it be assumed that this is due to the harmonics of the particle in question?
     
  12. Feb 17, 2004 #11
    Hi Pergatory

    You ask "assuming your assertions are true, could this explain such fundamental things as certain particles absorbing and reflecting various wavelengths of light? Could it be assumed that this is due to the harmonics of the particle in question?"

    Certainly, but the idea of resonance between the same, similar or harmonically related waves is not the exclusive domain of this theory. Existing theory does recognise some of the apects of what you ask. However in my view existing theory does not recognise all of the waves present in ordinary matter, referring to certain waves only by such terms as "bond lengths" which hardly recognises that e.g. a crystal has very strong waves of the bond length throughout it.

    Regards

    Ray Tomes
     
  13. Feb 18, 2004 #12

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Gravity is an imbalance between the inwards and outwards parts of a spherical standing wave that is each particle. The out wave is weaker by 1 part in 10^40 because of the increase in mass.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    this is an interesting comment, can you expand on this?
     
  14. Feb 18, 2004 #13
    Hi Wolfram

    Ray: Gravity is an imbalance between the inwards and outwards parts of a spherical standing wave that is each particle. The out wave is weaker by 1 part in 10^40 because of the increase in mass.

    Wolfram: this is an interesting comment, can you expand on this?

    Ray: Sure. First the idea of a particle as a standing wave. This idea follows the trend of Clifford (who proposed that matter was e/m standing waves as soon as Maxwell came out with his equations), and the subsequent discoveries such as de Broglie's wave nature of matter, Schroedinger's equation etc.

    In e/m there are solutions to the field equations which are spherical standing waves. Someone once said that whatever is not forbidden is required to exist. Where are these standing waves? They must be matter. There are several problems with this idea that must be solved and some great advantages.

    The first advantage is that there is only one type of "stuff" in the universe. The next that it totally solves the Michelson-Morley experiment, because if matter is light then it undergoes exactly the same distortions when moving as light paths do and a null result is expected from M-M.

    The problems are that Maxwell's equations are linear. That means that light does not interact at all with other light and would not interact with matter either. However we know that this is wrong as light does interact with other light but only at very high energy densities and it also strongly interacts with matter.

    Therefore it is necessary to see that Maxwell's equations are only approximations at low energy levels and need a non-linearity to explain the above events. For my Harmonics theory I need a non-linearity anyway so I am happy, and GR says that e/m is non-linear anyway because all energy distorts space which is a non-linearity.

    When the non-linearity is included, then the central part of a "particle" wave is the place where the non-linearity shows strongly. That is where the energy of the wave becomes very concentrated as the inward travelling wave does a little flip and becomes the outwrad travelling wave - the two together making a standing wave. That is why light is affected by this part. It is also how infinities are avoided by nature because distortions happen that prevent all the incoming wave going through a single point, but only passing through the central wave.

    But the consequence of the non-linearity is that the nearer you go to the middle of the wave the more the non-linearity causes the development of harmonics of any frequencies present. This means that the wave is losing energy to smaller scale waves who's centres are within the wave at a finer scale. That means that nucleon's are still forming quarks which cannot exist as free particle/waves.

    It also explains why stars form near the centres of galaxies, planets form near stars and nucleons are formed near the middle of atoms. This is the process of harmonic production of all waves over vast eons of time. It means that energy is always moving from larger to smaller scales. It explains how large scale structures can exist in the universe in violation of big bang predictions because at one time all the energy was in these large powerful waves, and although they are weaker now they have done there job in making the structure.

    I arrived at this understanding from the Harmonics theory and then discovered that the same idea that mass of particles must be increasing with time was promoted by Arp and others.

    From the harmonics theory it happens because energy is always moving to smaller scales as waves develop harmonics. It appears that the Hubble rate is the rate at which this is happening.

    Arp arrived at this idea (I think) because of the quantisation of redshifts. If we everywhere observe redshifts to have a tendency to be multiples of certain values (such as 72 km/s) then it is not possible for red shift to be due to velocity. For example, if we are in galaxy A and see others B and C at right angles, then if they are both doing 72 km/s relative to us, then they should be doing 72 km/s * 1.414 (sqrt 2) relative to each other. It cannot work.

    Next, the effects of this cosmologically. If red shift is due to changes in mass with time, then we see distant galaxies as they were long ago when all wavelengths were longer. The red shift is explained. And this explanation means that if the mass increases in little steps then we always see a whole number of steps so that B and C would see each other as either 1 or 2 steps apart, not 1.414.

    So if particles are increasing in mass the the rate must be the Hubble rate to explain the red shift. The Hubble rate is roughly 1 part in 10^10 per year. That translates to 1 part in 10^40 per 10^-23 seconds. That last figure is the time that light takes to traverse the inner wave of a nucleon. Therefore the inner wave of a nucleon must absorb 1 part in 10^40 of the enrgy going through it.

    However that 1 part in 10^40 is just the ratio between the force of charge compared to gravity. So it explains the correct strength of gravity fromm the same Hubble rate.

    To understand that this explains gravity it is necessary to understand the explanation sometimes given of gravity as a push force. If there is everywhere a flux (of radiation or particles) of energy then any two objects in that flux will cast shadows of the flux on each other. Therefore they will be pushed by the flux towards each other. That force will have the nature of an inverse square law and the product of masses.

    This partial absorption of the standing wave flux will do the same job.

    Regards

    Ray Tomes
     
  15. Feb 19, 2004 #14
    Hi Ray Tomes,

    In a fractal-like universe there is what we can call "a quality time" that can be a very short "quantity time" but tremendously changes our universe?s invariants (or lows on nature if you like) as we can learn from here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/inflat.html

    "Quality time" is what we can call "the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory".

    So, the age of the universe (its "quantity time") has (in general) less influence on its fundamental lows, when observed form "quality time" point of view.

    What do you think?
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
  16. Feb 19, 2004 #15
    Hi Organic

    Organic: ... "Quality time" is what we can call “the butterfly effect in Chaos Theory”.

    So, the age of the universe (its "quantity time") has (in general) less influence on its fundamental lows, when observed form "quality time" point of view.

    What do you think?

    Ray: In the harmonics theory, there are many harmonically related cycles which sum to make quite sharp discrete events at times. When many related harmonics all come together this can cause catastrophic events such as mass extinction events and geological cycle discontinuities.

    However in the harmonics theory there is no butterfly effect AFAIK, all the patterns follow a structured sequence in time that is predictable once the full pattern is known.

    Also, the harmonics theory produces some patterns such as frequency doubling and tripling which are a bit similar to chaos theory. I believe that some patterns found in nature have been wrongly identified with chaos theory through having patterns like this and chaos theory being the only known possibility. However the harmonics patterns are different and a proper test can be made to distinguish bnetween the two.

    Regards
    Ray
     
  17. Feb 19, 2004 #16
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Harmonics of the Universe
  1. The Universe (Replies: 1)

  2. Harmonic freuency (Replies: 2)

  3. Harmonic waves (Replies: 4)

Loading...