The Unified Spectrum & The Hyperbolic Sphere

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

All matter has a specific energy vibration rate, its natural frequency. Plot the wave amplitude vs. excitation frequency and it will peak at the resonant frequency. The peak is the spectral line.

Is what you are saying?

 

That each resonant point is a distinct colour or shade that represents a distinct element on the periodic table of elements ?

 

So. Say the spectrum is split into 92 distinct colours or shades ranging through red ,orange,yellow,green,blue,indigo,violet split 92 ways?

 

Representing hydrogen, helium............uranium ?

 

Is this what you are proposing photon propeller ?

 

So that would make 13 shades of red for 13 elements , then 13 shades of orange for another set of 13 elements etc etc 13 shades of green etc etc to ....... 13 shades of violet. ( 13.something )

 

Is this what you mean ? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. So to speak .

 

 

(13 and stick both have bad connotations ) sorry I jest . Not minimising your theory, just trying to get my head around it. Sounds quite interesting. If that is what you mean.

 

I think your comment that light is an amazing phenomenon , and no doubt there are all sorts of interesting features of light that we do not yet understand.

 

Please correct me if I am going off on a wrong tangent !

 

Mike

Edited November 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

All matter has a specific energy vibration rate, its natural frequency. Plot the wave amplitude vs. excitation frequency and it will peak at the resonant frequency. The peak is the spectral line.

 

 

Still vague nonsense. What is vibrating? Is is mechanical? Electromagnetic? When you say all matter has one, are you saying that all matter shares this or that each has its own unique value?

[photon propeller]

Is what you are saying?

 

That each resonant point is a distinct colour or shade that represents a distinct element on the periodic table of elements ?

 

So. Say the spectrum is split into 92 distinct colours or shades ranging through red ,orange,yellow,green,blue,indigo,violet split 92 ways?

 

Representing hydrogen, helium............uranium ?

 

Is this what you are proposing photon propeller ?

 

So that would make 13 shades of red for 13 elements , then 13 shades of orange for another set of 13 elements etc etc 13 shades of green etc etc to ....... 13 shades of violet. ( 13.something )

 

Is this what you mean ? Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick. So to speak .

 

 

(13 and stick both have bad connotations ) sorry I jest . Not minimising your theory, just trying to get my head around it. Sounds quite interesting. If that is what you mean.

 

I think your comment that light is an amazing phenomenon , and no doubt there are all sorts of interesting features of light that we do not yet understand.

 

Please correct me if I am going off on a wrong tangent !

 

Mike

yes, this is how we identify elements through light spectroscopy, their absorbtion and emission lines. their resonant fingerprint.

 

 

Still vague nonsense. What is vibrating? Is is mechanical? Electromagnetic? When you say all matter has one, are you saying that all matter shares this or that each has its own unique value?

the specific energy field, the unique combination of the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. The architecture of that combination produces a unique frequency.

[swansont]

 

the specific energy field, the unique combination of the electric, magnetic and gravitational fields. The architecture of that combination produces a unique frequency.

 

In actual physics the resonances arise because of the excited states having discrete energy levels. If that's what you're referring to, each atom has more than one resonance (actually an infinite number) and there are many atoms and even more molecules.

 

Given that, how can there be only one fundamental frequency of light? Or seven?

[photon propeller]

 

In actual physics the resonances arise because of the excited states having discrete energy levels. If that's what you're referring to, each atom has more than one resonance (actually an infinite number) and there are many atoms and even more molecules.

 

Given that, how can there be only one fundamental frequency of light? Or seven?

an infinite number of shades can be achieved, the fundamental wave is the primary wave of pure color tone, exact semicircles, a state of equilibrium, the resonant frequency of the inert gases, all the other shades are distortions of it. Pure tones fall directly on medians between electron shell transition lines, points of inertial equilibrium, shades arise at ranges in between median points. The seven pure tones coincide exactly with the seven electron shells. It is the measuring device. any state of matter may have multiple frequencies but the interference pattern of those frequencies is distinct. when we have the primary pattern to compare them two we can decipher those combinations accurately.

Edited November 12, 2013 by photon propeller

[swansont]

an infinite number of shades can be achieved, the fundamental wave is the primary wave of pure color tone, exact semicircles, a state of equilibrium, the resonant frequency of the inert gases, all the other shades are distortions of it. Pure tones fall directly on electron shell lines, points of inertial equilibrium, shades arise at ranges in between those lines. The seven pure tones coincide exactly with the seven electron shells. It is the measuring device. any state of matter may have multiple frequencies but the interference pattern of those frequencies is distinct. when we have the primary pattern to compare them two we can decipher those combinations accurately.

 

Which seven electron shells? Of one atom? Which atom, and which transitions?

 

Jeez, getting you to give useful detail is like pulling teeth.

[photon propeller]

 

Which seven electron shells? Of one atom? Which atom, and which transitions?

 

Jeez, getting you to give useful detail is like pulling teeth.

there are only seven possible shells, they all fall within a fundamental range of the nucleus, that range is proportional to the energy level, each level has a single shell range. transition points are median points between pure tones where shades become predominately the next consecutive color. see fig on atomic structure.

Edited November 12, 2013 by photon propeller

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

 

Jeez, getting you to give useful detail is like pulling teeth.

 

swansont ! Thats the funny'ist thing I've heard you say EVER ! I just laughed myself into a drain !

 

Mike

[swansont]

there are only seven possible shells, they all fall within a fundamental range of the nucleus, that range is proportional to the energy level, each level has a single shell range. transition points are median points between pure tones where shades become predominately the next consecutive color. see fig on atomic structure.

 

 

Physics calls BS on this. Are there any experiments that support this? Because basically all of them refute it. Let's start with the Hydrogen spectrum. How does the hydrogen spectrum support your claim? The Lyman series spectrum isn't even in the visible part of the spectrum, and is not evenly spaced.

[Bignose]

there are only seven possible shells, they all fall within a fundamental range of the nucleus, that range is proportional to the energy level, each level has a single shell range. transition points are median points between pure tones where shades become predominately the next consecutive color. see fig on atomic structure.

I am going to back swansont on this. All these ideas are nice in a new-age aesthetic kind of way. There is a certain appeal to seeing the same pattern in music and sound in electromagnetic waves. I get that. It is pretty.

 

But, the universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us. And, unfortunately, when people have actually done these experiments, the results are not pretty in the way you describe. This is what swansont is saying. That the actual experiments don't follow the patterns you say they do. In other words, your 'predictions' of 7 color tones is 100% not found.

 

So, the question really before you is: do you continue to profess a belief in the pretty solution in spite of what the actual data says? Or, do you take some time to mature scientifically, understand the experiments and the results that have been done, and learn to appreciate the results from a new aesthetic? Because, in my mind, science is also very beautiful in its own way, despite not always forming harmonics and resonances to one particular notion of beauty. Getting past this singular notion of beauty will allow you to gain a much deeper understanding of the universe as we know it today.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Bignose

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I am going to back swansont on this. All these ideas are nice in a new-age aesthetic kind of way. There is a certain appeal to seeing the same pattern in music and sound in electromagnetic waves. I get that. It is pretty.But, the universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us. .......

I do not think we should be in a hurry to rush away from visual beauty. Often beauty is at the heart of both good maths and good physics.

[John Cuthber]

 

Which seven electron shells? Of one atom? Which atom, and which transitions?

 

Jeez, getting you to give useful detail is like pulling teeth.

Specifically, it's like trying to pull teeth from a daffodil.

I do not think we should be in a hurry to rush away from visual beauty. Often beauty is at the heart of both good maths and good physics.

True, but the guy is talking utter nonsense/

[swansont]

I do not think we should be in a hurry to rush away from visual beauty. Often beauty is at the heart of both good maths and good physics.

 

Like Occam's razor, it is not the primary metric. The most important measure is whether it describes nature accurately. To paraphrase Huxley, beautiful theories get slain by ugly facts all the time.

[Bignose]

I do not think we should be in a hurry to rush away from visual beauty. Often beauty is at the heart of both good maths and good physics.

Sure. But did you miss the last sentence you quoted of mine there? The universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us.

 

It is fine if an idea is beautiful AND turns out to be right. But it isn't scientifically useful to have a beautiful idea that is wrong. It can be nice to look at, but if its scientifically unusable, science rightly rejects it. Because scientifically, the idea that makes the best predictions wins, whether that idea is beautiful, ugly, or anything in between.

 

So the OP's idea of overtones and 7 pure colors and all that is pretty. But it just doesn't fit the facts in any way shape or form. So, it really has no value scientifically. I don't know what more needs to be said. No amount of wishing the beautiful idea was true will change the facts, so why bother?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Sure. But did you miss the last sentence you quoted of mine there? The universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us.It is fine if an idea ......

..... No amount of wishing the beautiful idea was true will change the facts, so why bother?

 

Yes but beauty has been an encouragement to pursue super symmetry and aspects of string theory because of an enticing beauty. Yet with both of these theories little evidence has been forthcoming so far. As far as I know that is.

Edited November 12, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Yes but beauty has been an encouragement to pursue super symmetry and aspects of string theory because of an enticing beauty. Yet with both of these theories little evidence has been forthcoming so far. As far as I know that is.

 

Those are at least attempts at formulating a model which makes predictions, which is not the case here. And nobody is claiming those to be right simply because they are elegant. Do not fall for the fallacy of tu quoque

[Bignose]

Yes but beauty has been an encouragement to pursue super symmetry and aspects of string theory because of an enticing beauty. Yet with both of these theories little evidence has been forthcoming so far. As far as I know that is.

You're comparing apples to T-24 Soviet tanks. Sure, beauty may have been a motivator for looking into super symmetry. But ultimately, if the predictions coming from super symmetry is wrong, it won't matter a whit how aesthetically pleasing it is. It will be rightly rejected. THAT's the problem with the OP here. OP is letting beauty trump everything else, which is just nonsense scientifically.

[photon propeller]

Sure. But did you miss the last sentence you quoted of mine there? The universe is under no obligation to be aesthetically pleasing to us.

 

It is fine if an idea is beautiful AND turns out to be right. But it isn't scientifically useful to have a beautiful idea that is wrong. It can be nice to look at, but if its scientifically unusable, science rightly rejects it. Because scientifically, the idea that makes the best predictions wins, whether that idea is beautiful, ugly, or anything in between.

 

So the OP's idea of overtones and 7 pure colors and all that is pretty. But it just doesn't fit the facts in any way shape or form. So, it really has no value scientifically. I don't know what more needs to be said. No amount of wishing the beautiful idea was true will change the facts, so why bother?

Well lets test the assertion it has no scientific value. Who of you can disprove the interference pattern of the wave ive drawn? Any waveset of this proportion will contructively and destructively interfere with itself at the exact phase points ive shown. You can test it with a ruler and a compass. The idea is to visualize what interference actually looks like. As for fig) b the relationship to atomic structure is strictly speculative but founded on the idea of real life observation of spectrum, 7 colors, 7 electron shells, 7 energy levels. coincidence? I dont think so. Fig c on photon propagation shows a speculative oscillation model allowing for the influence of gravity and the hydrodynamic drag of the theoretical aether. I assert that this post has substantial scientific value on the basis of thought provocation alone.

[John Cuthber]

" I assert that this post has substantial scientific value on the basis of thought provocation alone."

And I assert it's a waste of bandwidth because you haven't actually said anything that is true.

There are not 7 colours

There are not 7 electron shells

There are not 7 energy levels so there's no meaningful question about coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidental that you arbitrarily chose the same number 3 times and stuck it in a sentence with no meaning.

And there is no aether.

 

Such a cloud of dross is, btw, not beautiful anyway so the discussion of beauty as a guide is irrelevant.

[photon propeller]

" I assert that this post has substantial scientific value on the basis of thought provocation alone."

And I assert it's a waste of bandwidth because you haven't actually said anything that is true.

There are not 7 colours

There are not 7 electron shells

There are not 7 energy levels so there's no meaningful question about coincidence.

It's obviously no coincidental that you arbitrarily chose the same number 3 times and stuck it in a sentence with no meaning.

And there is no aether.

 

Such a cloud of dross is, btw, not beautiful anyway so the discussion of beauty as a guide is irrelevant.

You missed the interference challenge John, the actual chance to know what your talking about. I said 7 pure color tones, countless shades. There are seven electron shells, also called principle energy levels, wonder why? They are labeled k l m n o p q, and are associated with the principal quantum number, but I dont think quantum electrodynamics is your field. The aether is speculative but founded on the idea of one all pervasive energy, Quantum vacuum energy is the lcd of it. Therefore there is nothing arbitrary other than your useless response.

Edited November 12, 2013 by photon propeller

[Bignose]

Well lets test the assertion it has no scientific value. Who of you can disprove the interference pattern of the wave ive drawn?

I stopped reading right here. Because, it is not up to any of us to disprove your idea. It is up to you to provide sufficient objective evidence that your idea matches evidence. Science does not just accept any idea until disproven. As a farcical example, you're not going to believe that I keep an invisible pet dinosaur in my garage until you disprove it, are you?

 

This does make science conservative. But it has worked exceptionally well to date.

 

Now, as for evidence. Answer swansont's question about the hydrogen spectrum. Show us that your idea makes some kind of useful prediction that agrees with known measurements.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

photon propeller,

I'm giving you one last chance to answer these questions with actual science as opposed to the absolute nonsense you are currently spouting. I'm closing the thread if you cannot do this.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

You're comparing apples to T-24 Soviet tanks. Sure, beauty may have been a motivator for looking into super symmetry. But ultimately, if the predictions coming from super symmetry is wrong, it won't matter a whit how aesthetically pleasing it is. It will be rightly rejected. THAT's the problem with the OP here. OP is letting beauty trump everything else, which is just nonsense scientifically.

 

A little memory is pricking at me here. The last university I studied electronics, had a maths teacher who i could communicate with. In a quiet moment I confessed that when confronted with a really difficult mathematical proof problem, with a sea of furmulae looking up at me off the page, i never knew which direction to proceed, which path of proof to take?

 

He said to me something very profound! I have never forgotten his answer !

 

Look for the most elegant, most beautiful , most simple route mike. We mathematicians have a 'nose' for seeing the way to mold the morass of formulae in a beautiful, elligant ,simple form , teasing out a reduced answer.

 

maybe he was right maybe he was wrong, he sure knew how to do math !

 

Mike

[swansont]

You missed the interference challenge John, the actual chance to know what your talking about. I said 7 pure color tones, countless shades. There are seven electron shells, also called principle energy levels, wonder why? They are labeled k l m n o p q, and are associated with the principal quantum number, but I dont think quantum electrodynamics is your field. The aether is speculative but founded on the idea of one all pervasive energy, Quantum vacuum energy is the lcd of it. Therefore there is nothing arbitrary other than your useless response.

 

I doubt it's yours, either, because then you'd know the occupied shell labels are chemistry. You haven't made any connection between electron shells and the spectrum. You haven't shown what the fundamental frequency is, or how it's limited to seven pure colors and you haven't shown any connection between your seven tones and atomic structure. Light comes from transitions between an occupied state and an excited state, and there are more than 7 levels of excited state.

 

You have to cover all of that. "Prove me wrong" or "answer this one bit" isn't how you make a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show your idea works, and covers all of the experiments to which it is supposed to apply. Your recent posts are merely diversions rather than evidence, and yes, we're noticing that. Time to stop tap-dancing.

[photon propeller]

 

I doubt it's yours, either, because then you'd know the occupied shell labels are chemistry. You haven't made any connection between electron shells and the spectrum. You haven't shown what the fundamental frequency is, or how it's limited to seven pure colors and you haven't shown any connection between your seven tones and atomic structure. Light comes from transitions between an occupied state and an excited state, and there are more than 7 levels of excited state.

 

You have to cover all of that. "Prove me wrong" or "answer this one bit" isn't how you make a theory. The burden of proof is on you to show your idea works, and covers all of the experiments to which it is supposed to apply. Your recent posts are merely diversions rather than evidence, and yes, we're noticing that. Time to stop tap-dancing.

I did state the frequency range, it begins in infrared at 140thz and ends at 980thz, green is 560thz and is its median. It scales up or down maintaining a 1 to 7 proportion, simple math. Like the relationship of shell number to principle quantum number, you failed to hear me. I have a thought experiment for all you naysayers which is firmly grounded in reality which will address Swansont's question. On a rainy day the clouds part and a ray of sunlight shines through the falling water. Lo, nature has dispersed its own light. I see the rim of the light cone, an arc. Hold your ruler to the sky, do you see the 7 colors? Are they not equally spaced? They are. Look closer, I see another rainbow behind it, the sun's light is periodic. Divide a pie into equal parts, turn it on its side. Do the slices now look unequally spaced? They do. So it is with the difference in vantage points of the straight line spectrum's interference pattern and illusion of distance to the reality of distance in the interference pattern of the arc of the rainbow. When viewed from above the arc looks like a straight line, move orthogonally to either side and lo, it is an arc. A prism changes the orientation of light therefore the vantage point of the observer, as if looking from above. A rainbow is a natural spectrum observed head on. The light cone is properly perceived by the eye because the retinal cones interpret the signal like the continual stacking of ice cream cones. Knowledge begins with the simple observation of natural phenomenon, clues, to the secrets of nature.

!

Moderator Note

photon propeller,

 

I'm giving you one last chance to answer these questions with actual science as opposed to the absolute nonsense you are currently spouting. I'm closing the thread if you cannot do this.

Absolute nonsense? Think again. Closing this thread would be as foolish as burning the witch at the stake. Everytime I give a scientific answer it is disregarded and another attack is initiated because the terminology is not understood. The idea that this topic is not even worth speculation is an insult to the scientific community. Behold the conversations that have arisen already. We mock what we do not understand.

So let me get this straight Swansont, the one very tangible aspect of my presentation, the interference pattern of the fundamental wave, you believe is some forgery or highjack? It is no more a forgery or highjack than any of my images. These are my thoughts on real scientific observation of natural phenomenon. If you can not disprove it, then as one once put it, you must submit it is right. The interference pattern and phase points are correct. My line of thinking is justified. My opinion of your responses is diminishing.

Edited November 13, 2013 by photon propeller