The Devil's Chord: The conspiracy to open the portal of consciousness and mystery of the octave

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

This is what you wrote:

from

Sound now proven faster than light

Citing

Sound breaks the Light Barrier

So there is actually no paper involved at all. Just some crank babbling about an article he read on a web site.

I do not withdraw my accusation. You are trying to put words into Louis de Broglie's mouth that he never uttered – or, for that matter, wrote.

Bernard d'Espagnat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_d'Espagnat D'Espagnat obtained his Ph.D. from the Sorbonne at the Institut Henri Poincaré under the guidance of Louis de Broglie.

Hm so the quantum physicist who says consciousness is the logical conclusion of quantum physicist was a direct student of de Broglie.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Right -- de Broglie didn't "say" that -- I wrote he "figured it out" -- that doesn't mean he realized he figured it out -- according to Bohm that's what he figured out.

More wriggling. How do you, or David Bohm for that matter, know what de Broglie figured out when he never told anybody he figured it out?

I know it's a subtle difference but then logic is subtle.

It is not a subtle difference; it is the difference between truth and a lie.

Now you think Bohm is a crank.

Another of your wild, unsubstantiated claims. Where did I say Bohm was a crank? Are you trying to tell me he wrote that 'commentary' of the Physics World article? He died 15 years before that article was written.

haha.

Starting to hurt when you laugh, is it?

Originally posted by Astyanax
Oh, and besides – it doesn't really make a difference, except between you and your conscience, whether or not you are telling the truth. The point is that you're talking rubbish.

• 5/4 is not the cube root of 2.
  
  
• Phase can never be infinite in value.
  
  
• There is no such thing as 'phase amplitude'.
  
  
• A wave of zero frequency is not a wave. It is silence.
  
  
• Group-velocity phenomena do not violate Special Relativity.
  
  
• De Broglie never said consciousness was a wave or that it travelled faster than light.

Let's see you explain these inconvenient little facts away. You're haven't been doing too well so far.

In view of this, a number of physicists tend to implicitly endorse a purely instrumentalist conception of physics. This approach in no way amounts to rejecting as meaningless the notion of a basic man-independent reality, as pure idealist thinkers do. It consists in observing that, whatever this entity “really is”, presumably it differs even more than previously thought from what it looks like.

Yeah D'Espagnat sure is fascinating on consciousness and de Broglie

reply to post by Astyanax

Henry Stapp very much exposes this neglected issue in quantum mechanics: There is, however, a fly in the ointment: In order to extract statistical predictions about possible experiences, some specific probing question must be physically posed. This probing question must have a countable set of experientially distinct alternative possible responses. “Countable” means that the possible responses can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the whole numbers 1, 2, 3, …, or with some finite subset of these numbers. But the number of possible classically describable possibilities is not countable: there is a continuous infinity of such possibilities. So some decision must be made as to which of the possible probing questions will be physically posed.268 Now what Stapp goes on to elucidate is how the Order of the Number effects the results of the experiment – in other words time is not reversible as it is in classical physics and also there is a direct intervention of consciousness. My spin on this is that the noncommutative properties of the quantum statistics (momentum times position does not equal position times momentum) were already tabulated by the Law of Pythaogras in nonwestern harmonics.

Stapp on Number and Order -- the bait and switch trick

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Hm so the quantum physicist who says consciousness is the logical conclusion of quantum physicist was a direct student of de Broglie.

So what? De Broglie secretly whispered to him one evening after a tutorial that conscioiusness was really a faster-than-light wave, did he?

De Broglie never said that, or even hinted at it. It is something you made up, or something somebody else made up, which you read and believed.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Nope. That doesn't explain away any of those inconvenient little facts. It's just somebody's opinion, and who the heck are they anyway?

Allow me to explain how this is done. You don't quote some half-relevant piece of impenetralia that you hope will sound impressive enough to deter further inquiry. You demonstrate, in a clear and logical fashion in your own words that, for example, 5/4^3 actually does equal 2. You may use mathematical symbolism if you wish. You may cite relevant sources to verify matters of fact. You may not cite sources, relevant or otherwise, that merely bolster your opinion. And you will take pains at all times to ensure that you are communicating nothing but the truth.

Care to have another go?

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Hm so the quantum physicist who says consciousness is the logical conclusion of quantum physicist was a direct student of de Broglie.

So what? De Broglie secretly whispered to him one evening after a tutorial that conscioiusness was really a faster-than-light wave, did he?

De Broglie never said that, or even hinted at it. It is something you made up, or something somebody else made up, which you read and believed.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

>yawn<

If you cannot answer in your own words, it shows that you have no understanding of the subjects you claim to know so much about.

Don't bother posting any more of these. I'm not reading them, and I don't suppose anyone else is, either.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Nope. That doesn't explain away any of those inconvenient little facts. It's just somebody's opinion, and who the heck are they anyway?

Allow me to explain how this is done. You don't quote some half-relevant piece of impenetralia that you hope will sound impressive enough to deter further inquiry. You demonstrate, in a clear and logical fashion in your own words that, for example, 5/4^3 actually does equal 2. You may use mathematical symbolism if you wish. You may cite relevant sources to verify matters of fact. You may not cite sources, relevant or otherwise, that merely bolster your opinion. And you will take pains at all times to ensure that you are communicating nothing but the truth.

Care to have another go?

Oh so that's why math professor Joe Mazur had me submit my music math research on 5/4 to the MAA, the most read math journal? Math Professor Joe Mazur said I had done very valuable research.

Yeah it's controversial -- that's why it's a conspiracy! haha.

Luigi Borzacchini said my mathematics was good -- again he's a math professor.

Are you a math professor? haha.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

The same goes for videos. I don't watch videos. Either explain in your own words or admit your ignorance.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

>yawn<

If you cannot answer in your own words, it shows that you have no understanding of the subjects you claim to know so much about.

Don't bother posting any more of these. I'm not reading them, and I don't suppose anyone else is, either.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Oh so that's why math professor Joe Mazur had me submit my music math research on 5/4 to the MAA, the most read math journal? Math Professor Joe Mazur said I had done very valuable research...

Luigi Borzacchini said my mathematics was good -- again he's a math professor.

Yes, and Lewis Carroll said you make very good tea.

Where's that explanation again? You can use maths – I don't mind. Just make sure it's your own maths.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Hm so the quantum physicist who says consciousness is the logical conclusion of quantum physicist was a direct student of de Broglie.

So what? De Broglie secretly whispered to him one evening after a tutorial that conscioiusness was really a faster-than-light wave, did he?

De Broglie never said that, or even hinted at it. It is something you made up, or something somebody else made up, which you read and believed.

If, within [the old Louis de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable model (with pilot wave
or quantum potential)], it proves possible to take explicitly into account the (undeniable!) fact that Wigners friend is conscious, it is conceivable that the basic idea underlying this solution can be extended, outside the model, to the general theory....To sum up, within this conception it is considered that even microsystems can be
endowed with “internal states of consciousness” (or “protoconsciousness”, whatever
this may be) that are elements of a basic, not publicly accessible, reality, rather
than of empirical reality.

Bernard d’Espagnat on his old teacher de Broglie and consciousness

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Oh so that's why math professor Joe Mazur had me submit my music math research on 5/4 to the MAA, the most read math journal? Math Professor Joe Mazur said I had done very valuable research...

Luigi Borzacchini said my mathematics was good -- again he's a math professor.

Yes, and Lewis Carroll said you make very good tea.

Where's that explanation again? You can use maths – I don't mind. Just make sure it's your own maths.

reply to post by fulllotusqigong

Why are you still doing this?

With every external source you quote, you make it more obvious that I have you by the hidden variables.

Bye for now.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by fulllotusqigong

 

Why are you still doing this?

With every external source you quote, you make it more obvious that I have you by the hidden variables.

Bye for now.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Phase can never be infinite in value.

There is no such thing as 'phase amplitude'.

On the relation of phase to amplitude in quantum physics

When we are discussing real things, like earthquake waves, it makes sense to use the real form and describe everything with sine waves. However, at this time, no one has determined a "real" meaning for the waves of quantum mechanics. So we might as well use the complex form. And since we can take the real part at any point in the computations, we might as well ignore it completely and rewrite the formulas to act as if the quantum waves are fundamentally complex.

Thanks for the post OP. I am intrigued, but much like others here I have a real hard time understand the lingo.

I want to point out that my favorite computation engine, WolframAlpha, is capable of helping us understand what is being said here.

Is all of this ratio talk in relation to the major scale?:

1 : do
2 : ray
3 : me
4 : fah
5 : so
6 : la
7 : ti
(Thank you Sound of Music)

So when you say perfect 5th you are referring to do + so? And the perfect 4th is do + fah?

But you are saying they actually should be??? That is where I am lost.

Perhaps you could use WA to help communicate.

Although my interpretation is that you are hinting at something other than music here such as real world math being more analog than digit and by us using limits to "round" numbers we are losing something? Like how 1/3 = .33 and 2/3=.66 then 3/3 = .99 = 1.

Anyway, thanks again for the post. We all know music affects us. If you don't think so then explain dancing. I personally find the videos of how we can see it affecting matter directly very telling (coral castle anyone?):

reply to post by Templeton


Great question.

Let's review this situation again. In the Pythagorean tuning based on the natural resonance overtones of 2:3 the diatonic scale or “major” scale is created – again through the mathematical extension of 2:3. So the singing scale “Doe a Deer” taught in the movie The Sound of Music and in basic music class is originally from the Pythagorean system based on multiplying by 3/2. The exact specifics of this Pythagorean process will be the focus of chapter 2 in this book – it's an issue that addresses the very foundation of mathematics itself. The implications of the ratios “not lining up” are based on a very deep paradox also the focal point of Nobel Laureate Dennis Gabor in his critique of Fourier Analysis: “If the term 'frequency' is used in the strict mathematical sense which applies only to infinite wave-trains, a 'changing frequency' becomes a contradiction in-terms, as it is a statement involving both time and frequency.”5

But just to give this major diatonic scale example the scale ratios were from five notes built from multiplying by 3/2 and then one note that is 2/3 (or 4/3x) of the original note of the scale. Anyone who has taken basic music theory in school will remember that the diatonic major scale has 2 half-step or semitone notes and 5 whole-step or whole tone notes. So the whole tone is 9/8 from 3/2 x 3/2 equaling 9/4 and then divided by 2 to mathematically put the “generating” fifth back into the octave. But the whole tone does not equal two semi-tones. So 2/1 x 2/3 = 4/3, the Perfect Fourth music interval, and 4/3 divided by (9/8 x 9/8) (the difference between the fourth and the third made from 2 whole tone notes) = 256/243. (256/243) squared (the two semitones) does not equal 9/8 (the whole tone) and therein lies the problem for creating polyphonic harmonics using chords, key changes, etc.6

I could hear how the Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth caused a tension or an inherent attraction due to their difference.7 For example the third overtones of the 1-4-5 music intervals are E, B and A. “The E, B, and A are 'weak' inviting alteration that results in the minor scale on one hand, and the blues scale on the other.”8 This 1-4-5 chord tension and resolution is most dramatically displayed in Western music through the African-American blues style, “bending” the equaltempered tuning, which also forms the basis for rock music.

5 Gabor, D. 1946. “Theory of communication.” Journal of the Institute of Electrical Engineers Part III, 93: 429- 457. 6. This paragraph is derived from Reginald Bain, “A Pythagorean tuning of the diatonic scale,” University of South Carolina School of Music, 2002. Here's how the University of Oregon Essentials of Physics, “Lecture 11, Musical Temperament and Pitch and Woodwind Instruments,” describes the Pythagorean tuning conflict: “Say your pianoforte is optimally tuned for C (let's discuss the octave starting at 261.63 Hz for the fundamental C). Then the perfect fifth, G, should be 1.5 times the frequency of the C, or 392.45 Hz. The major third, E, should be 1.25 times 261.63, or 327.04 Hz. So now lets play in E_flat. In one of the earliest tunings, the Pythagorean temperament (optimized for the key of C), A_flat would have a frequency of 413.32 Hz and we now consider this to be our new fundamental. The perfect fifth in this key, E_flat, should have a frequency of 1.5 * 413.32 Hz = 619.98 Hz, but E_flat optimized for the C tuning has a frequency of 620.21 Hz. In other words, the “perfect” and physical frequency ratios for tuning in C don't match up with those for the best results playing in the key of A_flat. It would be as if you would need 12 different pianofortes, each tuned optimally for a different key, so as to play pieces in different keys (or compositions that include modulations).” 8 Vada E. Butcher, Howard University Professor of Music reviewing Robert Fink's The Universality of Music (Greenwich Meridian Co., 1970), Journal of Research in Music Education, Fall 1972.

O.K. so my discovery of this was from the experience of listening to the music and then the realization that the Pythagorean harmonics were noncommutative -- 2:3 to C to G and G to C is 3:4.

We can see from the "Doe is a Deer" scale that the 2:3 was then taken from the lower octave and squared as 4:3 for the Perfect Fourth interval. So that F to C in the lower octave became C to F in the octave of the scale as the Perfect Fourth interval but this violates the commutative property C to G as 3:2x or F to C as 2:3x.

Here's the image of the Doe a Deer scale from the source

reply to post by Templeton


O.K. so the Doe scale was developed by using the "double octave" which was the trick of Archytas for squaring as a means to hide the complementary opposite resonance:

Dr. Alan C. Bowen reveals how Archytas developed these means from Pythagorean harmonics in his article “The Minor Sixth (8:5) in Early Greek Harmonic Science,” The American Journal of Philology, 1978: “For it was during this time that scales of a double octave magnitude, i.e. the Greater Perfect System, were constructed to facilitate the analysis of melody.”...Now, using the Greater Perfect System, the middle of the octave, the geometric mean as the
irrational square root of two or 9/8 cubed, could be expanded and turned into just 2:1 as the
middle of the double octave...Any who doubt that the musical ratios are all of greater inequality, i.e., that the
antecedent or first term in each is greater than the consequent or second term,
should consult Archytas DK 47 B 2. This Fragment requires that the ratios be of
this form if the assertions about the three means [arithmetic, harmonic and
geometric] are to be true. Accordingly, the ratios assigned to the octave, fifth,
fourth and minor sixth, must be 2:1, 3:2, 4:3 and 8:5, and not 1:2, 2:3, 3:4 and 5:8,
respectively, as Mosshammer and others would have them. Indeed, there is early
proof deriving from the Pythagorean school that intervals, such as the fifths,
which are represented by superparticular [n + 1 : n] ratios cannot be partitioned
into any number of equal subintervals because the terms of these ratios admit no
number of geometric means….There is reason to believe that these were supplied
by Archytas in the early fourth century B.C.233...So we can see that the ratio 9/8 which was cubed as the square root of two was created only after
the octave was doubled for the purpose of providing the geometric mean. The geometric mean is
A:B::B:C or B squared = AC or the square root of AC = B. In other words for Archytas to apply
his algebraic geometry equation, “harmonic mean x arithmetic mean = geometric mean squared”
not only did the octave have to be doubled as the square but also the ratios of the intervals had to
be reversed relying on the commutative property of geometric symmetry.

233 Alan C. Bowen, "The Minor Sixth (8:5) in Early Greek Harmonic Science," The American Journal of
Philology, 1978.