Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

reply to post by Bleeeeep


As above so below

reply to post by Bleeeeep


reality absolutely does round up. but, in terms of the "top-down" perspective from my last response, it may be more appropriate to claim that the system is what persists and the members of the system are "becoming" the system.

actually, thats pretty much the summary point of everything ive written for the past two weeks.

i think you are seeing conflict (between our understandings) where there is none. i fully admit that i am not always successful in my communications.

reply to post by tgidkp


Top-down is a good interpretation from our perspective. I think if we could go outside of the box, we could see that time only exists in the material world. Without time, there can only exist a single moment. All of the time just appears as the change of energy - surely, time does not exist. It's a measurement and nothing more - and if that is true, which it must be, then the top down thinking has a threshold. Outside of the box, there is no top nor bottom nor time to measure the box.

When electrons "orbit" the nucleus they generate an effect upon space-time, akin perhaps to dropping a rock upon a puddle.

The past is effectively a part of the present so what about the future???

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Nothing I can add to that.

You're right. Our senses are showing us an image but that image is not what is really there, is it?

reply to post by Kashai


At the heart of what you're asking, is the answer I want to know as well.

I believe the future is the change that the information is forcing upon the energy.

Where the information is stored is the question. Is it a stream of aether or is it stored little by little in the force of motion of each quanta?

Maybe both. Maybe the majority of the future is stored in the motion and each time God speaks something new into reality, it forces more change (he adds more force to the system).

What is a tachyon?

reply to post by Bleeeeep


there is recent evidence of bio-molecular systems being able to generate their own unique reckoning of time. it was stated that this unique timeframe is what creates an "identity" at the molecular level. it is also gives the system the ability to generate its own quantized coherence, independent from the restraints of decoherence typically associated with large (noisy) systems.

I do not like the idea that time doesn't exist or is just a human construction. I do, however, think that its definition is far more broad than 'c' (absolute).

reply to post by Bleeeeep


There is a palm tree outside my window and for all purposes it will probably be there tomorrow.

Pretty much that issue is "frozen" and in other words all things considered. When I wake up tomorrow there is going to be a palm tree outside my window.

How does the future relate to a Bose-Einstein condensate and just something I am presently considering.

Any thoughts?

Well, since you're going down this rabbit hole...

I suggest checking out hydrogen resonate frequencies, such as those associated with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance.

Other relating topics:
Plasmons
Ion acoustic wave
Gyroresonance Emissions

As well Planetary Harmonics & Neuro-biological Resonances, which looks exciting:
sites.google.com...

Then if you really feel like diving in deep:
Resonances in Physics
and Geometry
www.ams.org...

then... Resonant frequencies of Crystalline Structures

Have fun

reply to post by retirednature


hahaha.... rabbit hole indeed. it is quite a web to untangle... the untangling of which renders it useless.

I am currently more interested in resonances on quasicrystals, and in particular DNA.

good links, thanks!

Open Problems

In this article introduction of technical
terminology was rather systematically
avoided, and therefore a
precise formulation of open problems
is a somewhat difficult task.
The existence of many problems
should, however, already be clear.
Continuing in the same spirit of
vagueness, we can make them a little
bit more precise. Some of them
are present already in most basic
settings, and their solutions may be
elementary. Other problems involve extending the
existing knowledge to more complicated situations.
We may ask for:
• Global lower bounds of the form (11) on the
number of resonances; at the moment very few
unconditional bounds are known. To put this
in perspective, until the work of Plamen Stefanov
in 1998, the sphere was the only obstacle
for which the optimal lower bound was
known; it is still unknown for an arbitrary obstacle.
• Local lower bounds related to finer aspects of
the dynamical structure: a modification of
(10). At present only the “one hyperbolic orbit”
examples and their extensions provide lower
bounds corresponding to finer upper bounds.
• The modified Lax-Phillips conjecture of Ikawa
stating that there should be a strip with infinitely
many resonances for the Dirichlet Laplacian
on the exterior of several convex bodies.
Ikawa proved this for the Neumann Laplacian.
• Understanding of meromorphic continuation
of the resolvent on manifolds. In addition to
manifolds with simple structure at infinity
(some of which were discussed above), the
best understood general class consists of “conformally
compact manifolds” studied by Rafe
Mazzeo and Richard Melrose. They generalize
surfaces of the type shown in Figure 6. Even
there, the method of complex scaling is not
properly understood, nor are the upper
bounds. For other natural classes of manifolds
the situation is even less clear.
• Generalization of existing methods and results
(upper bounds, Poisson formulæ) to situations
where there are singularities at infinity.
The natural directions are provided by
higher-rank symmetric spaces and by the quantum
N-body problem.
The Riemann hypothesis could also have been
added, since it can be formulated in terms of resonances
(see Figure 5). It should, however, be remembered
that in their book on automorphic scattering,
Laoox and Phillips had a chapter titled “How
Not to Prove the Riemann Hypothesis”. So it is better
to leave it out.

Cool

Originally posted by tgidkp
reply to post by Bleeeeep

 

there is recent evidence of bio-molecular systems being able to generate their own unique reckoning of time. it was stated that this unique timeframe is what creates an "identity" at the molecular level. it is also gives the system the ability to generate its own quantized coherence, independent from the restraints of decoherence typically associated with large (noisy) systems.

I do not like the idea that time doesn't exist or is just a human construction. I do, however, think that its definition is far more broad than 'c' (absolute).

Would you be able to provide supporting links to information regarding said bio-molecular systems.

maybe... just maybe... matter IS time, and there actually is no 'space-time', rather time is sub-linear expressed best by parallel algorithms while the universe is at the same time inherently serials, all of which is at the whim of entropy driven interstimulus intervals

reply to post by tgidkp


How can you not see that time is the energy's reactionary speed of change to information? We all generate our own reckoning of time based on our perception of the change of information. When you're having fun you lose track of change - thus time "flies".

And to carry that over to the physical self, "time" slows the faster you move, but what is a better way of viewing it is that the faster something moves, the slower it reacts to change. Think about inertia or friction or think about "hot" or "cold". It is the change of information/force that is the cause of these things - so why should time be any different?

So what I'm saying is... both our perspective and our actual physical selves change based on the reaction. That change is literally time. So don't think time is the cause, time is the effect. When you measure time you measure change - time is nothing.

Time could very well be squared and that in relation to the C squared component of E=mc2.

reply to post by retirednature



published last year as a book contribution

book title: "integral biomathics: tracing the road to reality"
essay title: Time in Biology as a Marker of the Class Identity of Molecules

if you have trouble locating a copy of this fascinating read, pm me.

I am going to have to read that last bit you wrote another ten times (at least).

One way of looking at it is this....

c^2= (d/t)^2 = d^2/t^2 = (d^2) x (1/t^2)

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

When you measure time you measure change...

... and change is the resolution of uncertainty. time and uncertainty are a mutually reflexive pair. the former is passed "downward", giving the perception of directionality, and in exchange, the latter is passed "upward" giving the perception of location.

I am sorry that I cannot agree with you on this matter.

the only alternative to the reality of time is that the universe is ONLY certainty. while that might make a fine tenant for some type of religion, it serves no empirical or functional purpose.

reply to post by Kashai


holy moses! it is too far past bedtime to go THERE.

reply to post by Kashai


Never heard of it. What is it and what conclusions have they drawn from it that you're referring to?

As far as the electron orbit of a nucleus goes, I haven't gotten to tying that all in together. Weight, hot, cold, and magnetism, I suspect, is all controlled by the weak nuclear force. I think the speed of an electron, alone, is not the root cause of change, though. That is to say, it plays its part but the nucleus' motion/change probably has more to do with states of matter.

Went to make coffee and had a thought: Weight and magnetism probably are controlled by the electrons motion. As an example, think of lightening. Lightening moves towards the ground because it is attracted to faster electron orbits? Whereas faster moving nuclei are attracted to faster moving nuclei (think heated objects rise to less dense areas). Hot, cold, magnetism, weight are probably the same force acting differently only because of the makeup of the nuclei. That force I would say is best described as convection.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by tgidkp

 

How can you not see that time is the energy's reactionary speed of change to information? We all generate our own reckoning of time based on our perception of the change of information. When you're having fun you lose track of change - thus time "flies".

And to carry that over to the physical self, "time" slows the faster you move, but what is a better way of viewing it is that the faster something moves, the slower it reacts to change. Think about inertia or friction or think about "hot" or "cold". It is the change of information/force that is the cause of these things - so why should time be any different?

So what I'm saying is... both our perspective and our actual physical selves change based on the reaction. That change is literally time. So don't think time is the cause, time is the effect. When you measure time you measure change - time is nothing.

Our observations and descriptions of time based upon pattern recognition through geometry and numbers will either make or break our paradigm of the universe. Amounts in relation, are very 'real' fundamental principals, of which we then suggest that spacial intervals once inversely squared, toss in some triangles and angular momentums , find a way to incorporate some good ole' pie... and we then have it all figured out, right?

Well, there's no such thing as a perfect circle and man can not create parallel lines. So where does that leave us? We're stuck trying to continually adding new dimensions, degrees of freedom and pretend 'abstract' theories of which are STILL defined by a brain that has evolved to 'synesthesiatically' equate stimuli and creating the cognitive experience. Although I must admit, that geometry and numbers are the best tools we have for finding logical proofs while considering defined points are infinitely divisible and there's no end to Pi.

It is my theory that once cognitive neurosciences can accurately define the whole of our consciousness in a physiological system, we will then be able to accurately define the universe. For the lenses through which we perceive the world filter and reiterate it's make up through self-similar, sub-linear representations resulting in a faulty conscious experience that aims to satisfy some balance required by neural oscillations.

It's my opinion that the key is found somewhere with in ourselves. Suggesting that the Universe designed our intelligence, of which we must first understand in order to define the universe. If oscillatory activity with in frequency bands dictate both us and the universe, maybe... just maybe a paradigm resulting from extensive knowledge regarding ourselves will unlock the truths of the universe.

If this doesn't make any sense, how about a song?

see my elegance
dining on the periodic table crawl for elements
the universe designs my intelligence
drop science down a bottomless pit
one swift, doing handstands on pyramid tips
the sun splits the waterfront causing prismatic effects
butterflies come alive and have sex
birds fly out of my top hat slow
to join the brilliance of wilderness and soar through the congo
speak the convo to colors and shapes
my wordchoice is turquoise I love to create
my art hurdles over the clouds in dark purple
red mixes yellow and blue in sharp circles
paint splashes over your conscious like canvas
molecules rule unseen by deep glances
trace your physical form to that of a mantis
think of all varieties of life on the planet
glaciers and avalanches, they have a dance with
gravity
the gods put their lips on the galaxy
man interrupts true love and acts savagely
juice from the fingers of zeus cause calamity