Resonance: Music, Quantum, and Chaos

there are many subtleties of physical nature which are not difficult in themselves, but without which, an understanding of quantum (or chaos) (or music) theory is impossible. this thread contains information which would be perfectly appropriate in the science forum. however, in my opinion, it lies on the boundary of physics and metaphysics, and offers great insight into the foundations of modern society (and science).

this topic has application to the themes of (not all addressed here):
- squaring the circle
- pythagorean mysticism
- trigonometry
- foundations of western culture
- music theory ("solfeggio")
- "resonance", "frequencies"
- atomic and molecular spectra (light, color)
- stability and interactions of chaotic systems

- why Chaos Theory is a better description of physical reality than Quantum Theory, particularly with regard to Consciousness Studies


....and as always, overly pedantic.

pt.1 a square peg in a round hole




if we go over to the keyboard of the nearest piano, we can easily see that the length of its black and white keys are arranged in a pattern of 12 chromatic tones. using a moveable pattern of tonal spacing (whole, whole, half, whole, whole, whole, half), we may begin at any one of the keys and following this simple formula, play a "major" scale in any one of the 12 "Keys". it is immediately evident that the tonal "distance" between each of the 12 chromatic tones is perfectly and evenly spaced.

but this was not always the case.

prior to the popularization of the equal temperament by Bach's "Well Tempered Clavier" in 1722, plucked musical instruments could only effectively play in one mode (Key), or rather, the spacing of the tonal distance between chromatic tones was uneven.

the significance of this musical paradigm shift is not easy, at first, to understand. but it is not merely a coincidence that Rene Descartes' foundational mind/body dualism , the foundation of modern scientific reductionism, took hold during this same period.

the picture above illustrates visually the mathematics of generating a "well tempered" instrument.

pt.2 "to fret or not to fret"


when we pluck a string (or knock on a tabletop for that matter), the string assumes a natural cascade of harmonic oscillations, simultaneously. more properly, these oscillations are called "modes", and the property of any particular material, which give it its unique tonal quality, is called its "harmonic series".

it is possible, as in the single modal (not even tempered) piano, to tune all of the strings according to the shape of the harmonic series of the fundamental (lowest) string. in this instrument, striking any one of the strings will cause a sympathetic vibration in all of the other strings. the energy of the entire instrument is in perfect resonance, and because of this, the energy of the system feeds back onto itself. the shape of the tuning of such an instrument is called non-linear, and is shown below.



it is possible to simulate the natural resonance of the modal instrument using the even-tempered instrument. due to the linear tuning of this instrument, we must limit the sympathetic energetic feedback of most of the strings by covering them with a dampener, and only lifting the dampener on the specific strings which conform to the harmonic series of the mode we wish to emulate. such a dampener is an essential component of any modern piano. because of the absence of energetic feedback and sympathetic resonance, we can only ever achieve a bland and inaccurate simulation of the natural mode.

pt.3 the well-tempered hydrogen atom?


while it is true that sound frequency and electromagnetic frequency do not share many properties (a common mistake on these boards), the absorbtion/emission spectra of electromagnetic energy in material exhibit the same harmonic behaviors as described above. in fact, it is one of the primary objectives of quantum theory to model these spectra.


which of the "tunings" described above can fully account for these spectra? both? how?


quantum mechanics has had its share of success. it is a theory properly aimed at relational dynamics, but is nevertheless tainted by its conception in a reductionist scientific environment. chaos theory is similar in many ways to quantum theory.... but it is far better enabled to explain systems, rather than simply entities. perhaps we are, like Bach and Descartes before, at the cusp of a cultural paradigm shift. one in which we must combine the theories of "the ancients" with the "well tempered" models of the modern world.

related threads:
Perhaps not a God, but definitely a Gap
Why Quantum Theory is a bad host for Consciousness

I am in full agreement

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


in particular, i hope that this adds some clarity to the title of my last thread. i didnt realize how poorly supported it was. many times, pieces of information which i take for granted are not well understood by others. but, like i said, there are many subtleties which must be combined to arrive at a complete understanding.

but i maintain that it is all very simple. do you agree?

reply to post by tgidkp


You should be proud.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by tgidkp


You love your chaos, don't you?

I admittedly do not know the terminology you know, but I think I can see a little more clearly. (not trying to be rude - trying to get you on track)

What I believe you're doing is focusing too much on the differences. I think you need to find similarities - since that is, in essence, how we learn. (We search for similarities between what we think we understand, and what we do not understand, and upon finding similar features, we draw our conclusions)...

And to that point, I suggest you think of quantum and chaos as having the same operators - and that you're just looking at them from a different perceptive.

Personally, I believe you can model quantum into chaos if you allow quantum to be the alleged "tipping point" of chaos theory. That is to say, the moment when too much energy/information is pushed into chaos models, the model folds, and becomes quantized.

Let me draw you a picture:
Think of a body of water flowing nicely like a stream of chaos (the water flow is too much information to measure so you call it chaos)... if I throw a rock at the water, part of the stream will become too energetic, and fold into itself because of too much change (think convection); at that point, the piece of stream with too much energy becomes a drop of water apart from the stream (it has quantized).



Basically what I'm telling you is thus: Find similarities - not differences.

p.s. its not chaos, it's order in the infinite magnitude.

And will you answer these questions for me?

I can certainly understand that what we treat as Chaos is actually Order. From the proverbial point of view of four blind men trying to understand an elephant.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


Logically, if any order exist, then chaos does not.

It is the same as a falsehood. Only truth truly exists - that which is false does not.

edit: and sorry if I'm being a stick in the mud.

carry on.

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by Kashai

 

Logically, if any order exist, then chaos does not.

It is the same as a falsehood. Only truth truly exists - that which is false does not.

Given we are an image, then it is possible that order as we understand it has no definition in fact beyond that of being an image.

God having created Man in his own image, offers that we are simply a reflection, given dimensions perhaps isolated in that context to some extent.

A truth is that an infinite God and generate infinite truths, each equally as relevant as any other.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
Only truth truly exists - that which is false does not.

this particular issue was something i tried to address here. i wholeheartedly disagree with this response to kashai.

i appreciate your input, i will reflect upon what you wrote (about the water).

perhaps "order of infinite magnitude" is a useful description. but i have been careful to use "Chaos" instead of "chaos"... because there are particular attributes (self-feedback is a biggie) which fall under a title heading, rather than a description.

the unanswered questions youve linked to are very challenging. i havent forgotten about them, when i feel like i have something worth saying about them, i will give them a try.


thanks for posting. not a stick in the mud at all.

reply to post by tgidkp


Friend I am saying that if an infinite God exist than at the very least God should have an infinite ways of explaining his self.

An example being the Lotus Flower.


Any thoughts?

reply to post by Bleeeeep

model quantum into chaos if you allow quantum to be the alleged "tipping point" of chaos theory.

i really like what youve said here. although i may have not said so explicitly, i consider the "bottom of the potential well" to be the goal of quantum mechanics, and the "critical threshold of the transition state" to be the goal of Chaos theory. (quotes reference to this post)

so, yeah... "tipping point" is a great way to put it. and i am not prepared, even with what i have presented in this OP, to draw a definitive distinction between the two. with the exception that, IMO, quantum theory is impotent in regard to describing living systems and consciousness.

reply to post by Kashai


You might be right but the way I visualize us is that we are the spoken word of God. We were spoken into existence and we are to become his image - his visualization. That is what I think of evolution - we are becoming...He spoke it and we (from our perspective) are becoming it. The reason he done so, is because we need this reference point to learn to be faithful.

Furthermore, In John 1, when it says Jesus is the word, he meant it literally. We are within him and he within us. "Eat of my flesh" is both literal and figurative. Our universe, and maybe all of reality, is Jesus - the only begotten son.

Think of it like this - time, change, evolution are all the same thing. All of the "different" dynamics that we see are just us being God's image.

So to put it into perspective... all of this has already happened the moment he spoke us into existence. We are just reacting/evolving into it because we must learn faith. All the little strings are word and word is structured information - it is order. Not chaos.(added that to be relevant to the topic)

We're in day 7 from his perspective - from ours, billions - maybe trillions of years have passed. The future is known by the aether because the aether is the instructions of God's word.

So again, all the little things people see as differences - they're the same stuff. There is but one truth through which all truths originate. Come together people.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


From my perspective society has placed, way to much emphasis upon our differences.

It is time to look carefully upon what we have in common.

reply to post by tgidkp


The moment I read that thread (the other day) my mind immediately jumped passed what you were confused with. Essentially, you're saying we round things up - but reality doesn't do that. That rounding up plays no significance to actual reality (beyond controlling us byway of our thoughts).

That is why I jumped to the conclusion that there must be something you were leading up to - which you weren't. Reality doesn't round up I'm afraid.

I thought you were going to come to what I immediately saw - the changing of our fundamental forces - realities evolution, so to speak.

reply to post by Bleeeeep

we are the spoken word of God. We were spoken into existence and we are to become his image - his visualization....He spoke it and we (from our perspective) are becoming it.

while i am not fond of your phrasing, this type of top-down thinking, and specifically teleology, is becoming an increasingly favored concept in the recent scientific literature.

teleology has been frowned upon heavily in the past. one of the consequences of legitimate application of quantum (and Chaos) theory to living systems is that it endows those systems with a "purpose"... which is the primary theme of teleology. and i find it promising that there might be a functional and emperical use for such a concept. (regardless of how it might be used to argue the existence of a god.)

reply to post by Kashai


And what the theories have in common.

We started on this quest of figuring out reality and some how lost that goal over time. No one circles back to the start to try to piece together what we've discovered - they just keep going deeper and deeper.

reply to post by Bleeeeep


Everything we see, hear, feel, taste and smell result in internal representations.

That is what we understand of reality.

Any thoughts?