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

Resonating Vibrational Potentials

  1. Jan 29, 2004 #1
    Here is the largest part of the chart that will fit on a post.

    3.650E-07___3.864E-07___4.097E-07___4.339E-07 - visible light
    6.124E+00___6.484E+00___6.875E+00___7.281E+00_ octave
    1.224E+01___1.296E+01___1.375E+01___1.456E+01_ of
    2.449E+01___2.593E+01___2.750E+01___2.912E+01_ hearing 4.899E+01___5.187E+01___5.500E+01___5.824E+01_
    1.567E+03___1.660E+03___1.760E+03___1.863E+03_ highest
    3.135E+03___3.320E+03___3.520E+03___3.727E+03_ octave
    6.271E+03___6.640E+03___7.040E+03___7.455E+03_ of


    Last edited: Jan 29, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 29, 2004 #2

    This is almost too small to be of value, but the chart is extemely large for this forum.

    Values will increase by 1.05946 in each column to the right.

    Values reduce by x1/2 going up the chart by rows, and

    Values increase by x2 going down in the chart by rows.

    Chart is 13 columns wide, and as far as you would like to go up or down.

    The first column you see here is the 13th column. ("U.V."), and the second column you see is column 1 ("lavender"@386nm).

    The 12th column, not shown, is "red"@730nm. This also coincides with the U.V. column, one row down (7.301E-7). THIS CLOSES THE LOOP, MAKING THE MODEL CIRCULAR, NOT LINEAR.

    In 3-D, this would place the combination of the last U.V. value, before we see color, in combination (same vector) with red (at the top of the loop). This would explain why we don't "see" magenta more often, it is obscured by red. It also places magenta opposite of green, matching "the color wheel", and doing away with the need for a "subtractive" and an "additive" chart for color.

    The chart also clearly demonstrates the ability to remove the "1 second" that is common to wavelength and frequency, and leave their common feature of vibration to do its thing - find resonance.

    From the row delineating visible light in wavelength, to the bottom row that you see (our limit of hearing, in freq.), is -34 rows.

    If you continue this +34 more rows down, you will see light displayed in frequency values. With one major change - the values that were to the left of "red/red-orange" line are now to the right, and vice-versa.

    There is much more!

  4. Jan 30, 2004 #3

    I am looking at your contracted chart and still I don't understand what the chart is saying.

    Are the numbers wavelength or frequency? I am supposing that they must be wavelength because you have 3.650E-07 for UV and 1.492e+04 for indigo hearing. The units looks like microns.

    Although light waves and sound waves have common range of wavelength in part of their respective spectrum, they are not the same kind of waves. Sound waves are pressure waves, it needs a medium to move. Light waves does not need a medium, they can move in perfect vacuum.

    The best your chart can do is to indicate what range of wavelength that light and sound have in common. It does not give a hypothesis of how sound waves become light waves or vice versa.

    Maybe your theory is trying to me that we can directly see sound and directly hear light. this is science fiction! Unless you come up with experimental proof of how to build a device that can hear light or see sound directly.

    FYI: You might not be aware that the whole science of the 'audio parts of radio and TV' is based upon the conversion of sound to EM waves and EM waves back to sound waves by a technical device called the modem.

    In the warfare of submarines, ultrasonic (infrasonic?) is the means of communication between submarines because radio (EM waves) cannot be transmitted under water due to high attenuation (lose of power). Sound waves are not attenuated in water but in fact sound waves are enhanced under water.

    Last edited: Jan 30, 2004
  5. Jan 30, 2004 #4

    I went with the title of "resonating vibrational potentials" for at least three reasons.

    1. resonating: all the values in the chart have this in common. They are specific intervals that allow harmonic interaction.

    2. vibrational: movement back and forth (creating polarity, or 2 field interaction) - sound and EM waves share this trait.

    3. potentials: the chart was a logical extension of the study of music theory. This chart is a scale. A scale tells you, by specific patterns, which of the values to use, and the order of use. A knowledge of music scales would be helpful. So all of the values in the chart have potential resonance.

    I am NOT saying they (light and sound wave) are the same, or are interchangeable. I am trying to show the "behind the scenes" commonality. (vibration)

    The values below E-OO are in wavelength, and above E+01 are in frequency.

    I AM SAYING that it is not coincidental that I started with 13 values in a G scale, and using one command (reduce by 1/2) came to the near exact (within perceptive limits) values of light (spectrum) in wavelength (34 rows up). Then again, 34 rows down, the color spectrum in frequency (with the x2 command).(and 1.05946 interval)

    Further agreements: three note triad (chords) rules will work for color mixing (light and dyes). This also agrees with 3 value color force interaction of quarks.

    I just realized that the top row where I have color names are NOT column labels, they just help you see the result of the values in that row. In the original chart, the background of this row is colored accordingly. It will not transfer here.

    Last edited: Jan 30, 2004
  6. Jan 30, 2004 #5

    To start this reply, I am going to make the statement that sound waves cannot resonate with light waves. This is due to their mode of vibration. Lightwaves vibrate up-down, soundwaves vibrate for-backward. And to make it worse, the two resonating waves must be in phase. And to be in phase, the period of one waves must be the multiple of the other. There might be other conditions, the above are the minimum conditions for resonance to take place.

    The science of LASER was based on the monochromatic principle of light. Light of the same color, the same frequency, the same wavelength but they can still be out of phase. So to make LASER possible the EM waves have to be in phase.

    The other thing, it is not correct to make a chart of wavelength and frequency. A frequency chart can be made and a wavelength chart can be made then when you use matrix multiply the result is a speed chart of the waves.

    But a speed chart for EM is always the same number, the speed of light.
    The speed chart for sound varies depending upon the density, temperature, etc. of the medium transmitting the sound. And the average value of the speed chart of sound is about 340 m/s in air, faster in liquids and more in solids. 340 m/s is not comparable to 300,000 km/s anyway we look at it.

  7. Jan 30, 2004 #6

    I am not trying to mix sound and light, or w and f.

    If this were a list of vegetables and meat. Two foods, but very different. What my list does is show the protein content, or calories, for instance. This does not then mean I claim there is no difference from broccoli and beef.

    Please refer to Title, definitions and most importantly, HOW this chart was derived. I started with a near universal acceptance of a harmonic value known as A 440. By simply multiplying by 1/2, 30 times, and you get 4.09E-07 (409nm)wavelength (violet). And multiplying by 2 , 40 times, and you have frequency values.

    I did not "put" the values of frequency and wavelength together, they arose naturally from a very simple equation, starting with a "note".

    I am not saying they (light/sound or w/f) interact. The chart is of POTENTIALS..

    Antonio, this is not fundamentally any different than the motivation behind string theory. I am not reinventing any wheel - just pointing out its "circle" like qualities.

  8. Jan 30, 2004 #7

    I need to read up more about other things like 'string' before I can respond to this thread.

    Depending on what I can find, I will be back.

    Thanks for the discussions. I have realized there is more that I need to learn.

  9. Jan 31, 2004 #8

    A point of similarity: The concept of an "octave" is used here. A "c" at 262hz is lower than a "c" at 524hz. They are still both a "c" note, but 2/1 ratio value difference (frequency). This happens on the 8th step, and 13th interval in the ratio:

    Step - Interval
    1 -- 1
    2 -- 3
    3 -- 5
    4 -- 6
    5 -- 8
    6 -- 10
    7 -- 12
    8 -- 13

    In this, step 1 & 8 and interval 1 & 13 are the same "item" at the next available x2 energy step (frequency).

    Last edited: Jan 31, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook