The perfect fifth: iconic science fiction theme tunes

Started by Seze Mune, February 09, 2012, 07:22:05 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Seze Mune

   We're talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey, which uses the beginning of Richard Strauss's 'Also sprach Zarathustra', the theme from Star Wars, and Star Trek: The Next Generation, among others.  Can you hear them in your head yet?

They use what's known musically as the perfect fifth, sometimes along with the perfect fourth.  It has its basics in physics:



" When you hit a string or a piece of metal or anything that vibrates, you hear the fundamental pitch that the thing is vibrating at, but you hear a series of overtones - of harmonic frequencies - that you're not exactly aware that you're hearing. And those are a series of notes that are increasingly higher than the fundamental. So what's called the first overtone, as in the lowest of the overtones, is an octave higher than the fundamental, and you can guess what the next one up is: It's a fifth higher up than that.

   "So if you have a guitar string that is tuned to a C and you pluck it, you actually hear not only that C, [but also] you hear clearly the C above that, and less clearly the G above that. And in fact, you're hearing many, many more notes that keep going up higher and higher, but the higher you go the less clear it is. There is something fundamentally natural about that octave, and then a fifth relationship, that happens in sound. This is not something that composers came up with this, this is something that happens in the physical universe as we know it. So that makes it feel very strong... because you play a note and then you play the octave above it, you're reinforcing overtones."



"    Top Stories


These are the notes we're used to hearing all the time, says McCreary: "If you take a pan out of the oven and smack it, you're going to hear those same notes resonating out. And I think that same familiarity makes it comforting."'


The rest of the story: Bear McCreary reveals the physics behind your favorite science fiction theme tunes

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

This is interesting. But as pointed out in the article, is not at all unique to science fiction music. It is the basis of music as we understand it. The ear likes to hear consonant intervals.

Its a long, dry read in parts, but you should read Helmholtz's 'On the Sensation of Tone', the first scholarly work written on this subject. In the end, he shows you a 'tonal map' of an octave, and shows the parts that are particularly consonant or dissonant with the tonic of that octave. Not surprisingly, the most consonant intervals are the fifth and the fourth, followed by the third. What do these all have in common? the tones involved have simple integer relationships with each other.

One really interesting thing about pure fifths is that they are slightly 'off' from octave relationships by an amount known as the 'pythagorean comma'. If you increase in pitch by 12 fifths and 7 octaves, you come to essentially the same note. But they are off pitch from each other. This slight error is responsible for much of the tremendous creativity involved in music, and problems that have plagued composers and musicians from time immemorial. There are tuning systems with pure fifths, such as 'menatone temperment', often used in Baroque music. After you have listened to it for a while, you can easily pick out the somewhat cloying sound of meantone temperment in classical music. Meantone temperment has some very interesting problems, though, such as (for instance) C# and Db actually being different tones. There was also a limitation on what keys you can write music in, in meantone temperment. Because it is so pure, anything that is not playable in this system sounds particularly dissonant. Those dissonant intervals are often referred to as 'wolves'.

To allow the playing of music in any key, the equal temperment system was invented (and championed by Bach), where each musical note in an octave differs from the next by the 12th root of 2. There are no pure intervals in equal temperment, but you can use all of the available major and minor keys. Also, each key has a little different feeling to it-- for instance, D major is very bright and alive, E b major is very majestic, F major is pastoral in feeling and D minor is somewhat sinister sounding. But all are equally playable.

But despite equal temperment, the harmonic series emitted by a musical sound all has pure intervals-- it is in tune with itself. When you get several (especially) very bright sounding instruments playing together, the clash between the higher harmonics creates a distinctive sound.

But unless you are a musician, and especially a musician interested in the physics of sound, you never think much about these things. You just understand that things are done a certain way in music for a reason that is not important-- its just the way it is done, and the results speak for themselves.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Seze Mune

That is really amazing, ma 'Eylan Ayfalulukanä!  Is this a major area of study for you, that you know so much about it?  It's fun to learn the dynamics of sound like that.

As for myself, my own understanding of music and science is more along these lines......Your Molecular Structure

Ikran Ahiyìk

Pitch of an octave above it = 2 * Pitch of a note

Pitch of a perfect 5th above it = 27/12 * Pitch of a note, ~ 3/2 * ...

Oh, base on my limited music theory knowledge, that parallel fifths and octaves are forbidden in polyphony Baroque music, especially the choral one. Any appearance means something very special. You'll also find that by just giving you a C and G you can't define whether it's major or minor.. they sounds the same.

And one more.. I remember I'm told something briefly in Physics lesson, different ratios of overtone creates the sound quality, without it you can't figure out it's played by what instrument. Fifths and octaves may sightly change the quality. Increase the volume of course.
Plltxe nìhiyìk na ikran... oe fmeri sìltsan nì'ul slivu, ngaytxoa...


See the new version with fingerings!
Avatar credits to O-l-i-v-i.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

#4
To answer Seze's question, yes, it is an area of study for me. I am fascinated by the pipe organ, and all the literature that exists for it. In the quest to learn more about how an organ goes about generating tone, it became necessary to delve into the things I discussed in my first post.

An organ pipe (or any musical instrument, as Ikran Ahiyik points out), produces a fundamental tone, plus harmonics. If an instrument just produced a single tone, it would be equivalent to a sine wave in electronics. This is typically not useful for music. The overtones from an organ pipe can be precisely controlled by whether the pipe is open at the top or closed, how the mouth is shaped, whether it is 'nicked', the size of the toe hole and many, many other factors.

Besides the pipe's own overtone series, which as I mentioned in my previous post, is inherently in tune with itself, most organs are able to sound the same note in several octaves, each identified by the approximate length of an open pipe at the low end of the keyboard. So, 8 foot tone would be the basis on the manuals (the keyboards played with the hands) and 16 foot the pedals (played with the feet). To these you could add 4 foot, 2 foot, etc. or going the other direction, 32 foot and even lower in exceptional instruments. Most organs also offer 'mutation stops', designed to sound an a fifth or third above the fundamental tone. These have lengths like 2 2/3 foot or 1 3/5 foot.

So although the fundamentals of all these pipes would be in tune with each other, the overtones are not, because of the Pythagorean comma. So, a number of stops drawn together to produce a certain tone sounds different from a single pipe that can make that tone by itself.

To combat this, many organs have what are called 'mixture stops' where they have a number of pipes that sound together per note, usually at high pitches where these effects are most noticeable. These pipes are tuned to the overtone series of the fundamental they are designed to be used with, and thus produce yet another kind of tonal effect.

Thus, when you typically build up a sound by drawing stops, you would start with 8 foot only, add 4 and 2 foot, perhaps the mutation stops, and finally mixtures, to produce 'full organ' sound.

To accommodate meantone temperment, special organs have been built that have as many as 17 keys per octave (the black keys are split front and back. For instance, pressing the front of an A flat key would play a meantone A flat, and pressing on the back half would play a meantone G sharp. This technically allows meantone temperment to be played in a much wider range of keys. It is also a nightmare for organbuilders, as some of these instruments are also set up to also play equal temperment with the operation of a lever.

Many other temperments have been developed (but are rarely used) to try and overcome the problems created by the Pythagorean comma. Interestingly, the human voice and fretless stringed instruments can make minor adjustments in pitch to always sound 'in tune'. This is not really a temperment, but is called 'just temperment'.

So although I don't really understand practical music theory (but that might change based on some really cool things I found when researching the fiirst post), I do understand this part of the physics of tone and music, because of its profound effect on the organ any other keyboard instruments.

BTW, I am not much of a musician. I played saxophone in high school (started too late), and took a couple years of (classical) organ lessons. But, my career got in the way. I do have a couple of small electronic keyboard instruments I mess around with, and some ethnic flutes.  To compensate for this, I have mixed sound for many years in church settings, as well as helped produce radio shows featuring organ music in a sacred setting. I have also done some repairs to pipe organs when no one else was around to do it. And Reno is a great place for organ fans. This relatively small town has a rather active organ community, and a couple of good-sized instruments. One of my best friends here is a concert organist (David Brock), and he is really into all this tonal theory stuff, as well. He has helped me to connect theory with tonal results.

Interesting videotsyìp, ma Seze! A little bit of light jazz. The bass player was really into it, he was working hard! This must have been taken from an old VHS recording, as you can see the headswitch noise at the bottom of the picture. That used to be very common to see, now you hardly ever see it.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Kamean

QuoteThat is really amazing, ma 'Eylan Ayfalulukanä!
:)
Tse'a ngal ke'ut a krr fra'uti kame.


Seze Mune

Ma 'Eylan Ayfalulukanä, I am highly interested in what you explain.  As I mentioned, my knowledge in this field is abysmal so I definitely need to read the treatise you mentioned, 'On The Sensation of Tone' (hope it won't be too difficult to find).

Two things leap to my mind here.  The first is that my family has an instrument which looks like an upright player piano.  If you depress one of the keys, however, you hear nothing until you begin to pump the foot pedals.  There are stops built into the vertical surface above the keyboard, and as a kid I used to play with the different notes I'd get depending on which stops I pulled out or pushed in.  Apparently this instrument is some sort of organ...I believe it's more than 100 years old, it's been in the family that long.  After your explanation, I'm wondering about it again and wish I had it to hand to play with.  It sounds very much like some sort of horn.

The second idea takes off from your explanation of harmonics.  It seems logical that anything which vibrates probably produces a sound, whether or not we can hear it with human ears.  As I mentioned in the Higgs-Boson thread, we have (to the best of present knowledge) only five senses and everything we use for analysis is an extension of these in some form. If we think about what we know about molecular structure (I'm smiling here gratis the music vid above) we know that electrons, protons, etc. all vibrate.  IF vibration produces a sound, it is possible that medical science could develop instruments (double entendre, grin) which could hear and identify inharmonious processes in the body and perhaps therapeutically 'tune' them, the same way a tuning fork can make a second inert tuning fork begin to vibrate at the same pitch.  Or it could use the mechanics of a harmonic oscillator to effect a therapeutic change in the human body.  I think MRI scans already work on the principle of resonance, as evidenced by its very name.   ;)

It would give a whole new meaning to 'music therapy' !   :D

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

First of all, on the book. It is a timeless, classic title that is available from Dover Press (who sell lots of other books on music, as well as musical scores) http://www.amazon.com/Sensations-Tone-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486607534/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328988262&sr=8-1 I would not be surprised if you can't download this somewhere-- my ownership of it predates the Internet.

The instrument you describe is called a 'pump organ' or possibly a 'harmonium'. They were very common in homes before electronic instruments came along. They used a 'free reed' as a tone generating device. There are two types of reed tone generators. A 'beating reed' works against a block called a 'shallot', opening and closing the opening in the shallot as it vibrates. The rate at which the reed vibrates is typically controlled by the air column in the pipe, which facilitates the ability of the reed to open and close the opening in the shallot against air pressure. Free reeds though, vibrate through an opening in the what would be the shallot in a beating reed. They are less dependent on the air column, and tend to vibrate at the same rate with variations in air pressure. They also stand in tune well for long periods, and require little maintenance. This is why they are used in pump organs. Besides pump organs, I have seen free reeds used as a tone generators in electronic organs. A couple of organ pipes also use free reeds. In any case, reed pipes are one of the three basic types of organ pipes. It is no surprise that your pump organ has a brassy tone to it, as this is the kind of sound reed pipes do best. They are also used as powerful solo stops, as they can produce a lot of sound on high air pressures.

Your observations about particles, atoms, etc. vibrating is correct. In fact, there is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that exists for every particle, and vice versa. (It is interesting to think of something like radio waves as photons, but they are both waves and photons). You are also correct that MRI works by measuring the vibrations that result when atoms are excited by radio frequency waves in the presence of a magnetic field. Therapies already exist that take advantage of the selective ability of electromagnetic energy to affect certain tissues, such as lasers that will pass through one kind of tissue but burn another. Where your idea breaks down is that these vibrations cannot (except for a couple of cases) be 'tuned'. The vibrations are fixed by quantum processes, and a re extremely precise. We use one such vibration-- the vibration of a cesium atom-- to base our measurement of time, and indirectly, quantify the speed of light. Thanks to advances in technology, rubidium-based atomic clock frequency sources are now priced easily within the budgets of experimenters, and Symmetricom has just come out with a cesium atomic clock that is not much bigger than a typical IC chip, does not wear out, and costs less than $1,000!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Seze Mune

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 11, 2012, 01:45:28 PM
First of all, on the book. It is a timeless, classic title that is available from Dover Press (who sell lots of other books on music, as well as musical scores) http://www.amazon.com/Sensations-Tone-Dover-Books-Music/dp/0486607534/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1328988262&sr=8-1 I would not be surprised if you can't download this somewhere-- my ownership of it predates the Internet.

I'm already checking this out.  It has some interesting reviews on Amazon, and one recommendation to peruse Juan Roederer's THE PHYSICS AND PSYCHOPHYSICS OF MUSIC instead and use Hemholz's work as a backup.  But at $15.52, it looks like a good investment for those who are interested in the subject.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 11, 2012, 01:45:28 PM
The instrument you describe is called a 'pump organ' or possibly a 'harmonium'. They were very common in homes before electronic instruments came along. They used a 'free reed' as a tone generating device. There are two types of reed tone generators. A 'beating reed' works against a block called a 'shallot', opening and closing the opening in the shallot as it vibrates. The rate at which the reed vibrates is typically controlled by the air column in the pipe, which facilitates the ability of the reed to open and close the opening in the shallot against air pressure. Free reeds though, vibrate through an opening in the what would be the shallot in a beating reed. They are less dependent on the air column, and tend to vibrate at the same rate with variations in air pressure. They also stand in tune well for long periods, and require little maintenance. This is why they are used in pump organs. Besides pump organs, I have seen free reeds used as a tone generators in electronic organs. A couple of organ pipes also use free reeds. In any case, reed pipes are one of the three basic types of organ pipes. It is no surprise that your pump organ has a brassy tone to it, as this is the kind of sound reed pipes do best. They are also used as powerful solo stops, as they can produce a lot of sound on high air pressures.

It sounds as though the beating reed would change tones depending on air pressure, so theoretically one could change the sound by pumping faster and generating more pressure.  I'm not sure ours works that way, but right now I couldn't say for sure.

Most of the harmoniums I'm viewing on the internet look like portable boxes.  Ours isn't like that.  It appears to be a Victorian pump organ, almost identical to this:





Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 11, 2012, 01:45:28 PMYour observations about particles, atoms, etc. vibrating is correct. In fact, there is a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that exists for every particle, and vice versa. (It is interesting to think of something like radio waves as photons, but they are both waves and photons). You are also correct that MRI works by measuring the vibrations that result when atoms are excited by radio frequency waves in the presence of a magnetic field. Therapies already exist that take advantage of the selective ability of electromagnetic energy to affect certain tissues, such as lasers that will pass through one kind of tissue but burn another. Where your idea breaks down is that these vibrations cannot (except for a couple of cases) be 'tuned'. The vibrations are fixed by quantum processes, and a re extremely precise. We use one such vibration-- the vibration of a cesium atom-- to base our measurement of time, and indirectly, quantify the speed of light. Thanks to advances in technology, rubidium-based atomic clock frequency sources are now priced easily within the budgets of experimenters, and Symmetricom has just come out with a cesium atomic clock that is not much bigger than a typical IC chip, does not wear out, and costs less than $1,000!

OK, this has a lot of interesting information.  If I'm reading you correctly, everything living or 'dead' emits electromagnetic radiation by virtue of the fact that it exists in a physical world and is composed of atoms and their subdivisions. Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared and ultraviolet, the difference being how much energy they're packing as the particles travel in wave-like forms....something like the motion of spermatozoa, only perhaps a lot more mathematically predictable. 

We humans, much to my surprise, emit infrared light...which is why we can be picked up with night vision goggles.  Nothing in nature goes to waste, so I'm intrigued by the possible interplay between this fact and the natural world. Snakes pick up on infrared heat signals, but not the light.  Animals which have 'eyeshine' at night - notably cats and dogs (and lions?   ;)) - have a tissue layer at the back of their eyes to reflect light back through the retina which makes it more available for photoreceptor capture.  Humans don't have this layer, but I suppose it's possible to splice DNA with this potential...an interesting potential for the RDA in the next iteration of avatars.   :o

Let me quote something as background for my next few paragraphs:

"In quantum physics, quantum coherence means that subatomic particles are able to cooperate.  These subatomic waves or particles not only know about each other, but also are highly interlinked by bands of common electromagnetic fields, so that they can communicate together.  They are like a multitude of tuning forks that all begin resonating together.  As the waves get into phase or synch, they begin acting like one giant wave and one giant subatomic particle.  It becomes difficult to tell them apart.  Many of the weird quantum effects seen in a single wave apply to the whole.  Something done to one of them will affect the others.

"Coherence establishes establishes communication.  It's like a subatomic telephone network.  The better the coherence, the finer the telephone network and the more refined wave patterns have a telephone.  The end result is also a bit like a large orchestra.  All the photons are playing together but as individual instruments that are able to carry on playing individual parts."

In the early 1970s, physicist Fritz Albert Popp created a machine which looked like a large X-ray detector (EMI 9558QA selected typed).  This used a photomultiplier which allowed it to count light photon by photon.  Testing his machine with ethidium bromide applied to samples of DNA showed that DNA was one of the most essential storage places and emission sites of biophotons in the body.  Popp also had a special room 'so dark that only the barest few photons of light could be detected in it.'  Here he began to study the light emitted from living humans.  A healthy 27-year old woman was tested over nine months, resulting in data which showed that biophotons followed set rhythms of 7, 14, 32, 80 and 270 days when the emissions were identical.  Emissions for the right and left hands were correlated so that if there was an increase in one, there was also an increase in the other.  Subatomically, the hands were in phase.  There were other repeating rhythms as well.

When he contrasted these results with people who were not healthy, who had cancer, he discovered that these rhythms were missing, as was their coherence.  The patterns were scrambled.

With MS patients, it was the opposite. The patients were absorbing too much light and creating a super coherence which destroyed the delicate harmonic flexibility and individuality of the cells.

Popp decided that DNA uses light frequencies as a communication tool, a switch.  For example, apparently it's well known that you can blast a cell with such strong UV light that you destroy 99 percent of it including the DNA, yet you can repair it almost entirely within a single day by illuminating it with a very weak intensity of the very same wavelength.  No one can explain it, but it's said it's never been disputed.

So I guess people have been taking the atomic vibrational aspect seriously in medical applications, but there are still many further advances to be made.  I think metaphorically, we're still in the dark ages medically speaking.

And on some level, the whole discussion brings a new intuitive perspective to Matthew 6:22, 23.   ;)

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Seze Mune on February 11, 2012, 10:04:49 PM
I'm already checking this out.  It has some interesting reviews on Amazon, and one recommendation to peruse Juan Roederer's THE PHYSICS AND PSYCHOPHYSICS OF MUSIC instead and use Hemholz's work as a backup.  But at $15.52, it looks like a good investment for those who are interested in the subject.

I saw that book and several others. I will look at adding them to my book wish-list! They are right though, that Helmholtz uses a lot of old fashioned terminology, because much of what he was studying was not well understood at the time. It is still undeniably a classic, though.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 11, 2012, 01:45:28 PM
The instrument you describe is called a 'pump organ' or possibly a 'harmonium'. They were very common in homes before electronic instruments came along. They used a 'free reed' as a tone generating device. There are two types of reed tone generators. A 'beating reed' works against a block called a 'shallot', opening and closing the opening in the shallot as it vibrates. The rate at which the reed vibrates is typically controlled by the air column in the pipe, which facilitates the ability of the reed to open and close the opening in the shallot against air pressure. Free reeds though, vibrate through an opening in the what would be the shallot in a beating reed. They are less dependent on the air column, and tend to vibrate at the same rate with variations in air pressure. They also stand in tune well for long periods, and require little maintenance. This is why they are used in pump organs. Besides pump organs, I have seen free reeds used as a tone generators in electronic organs. A couple of organ pipes also use free reeds. In any case, reed pipes are one of the three basic types of organ pipes. It is no surprise that your pump organ has a brassy tone to it, as this is the kind of sound reed pipes do best. They are also used as powerful solo stops, as they can produce a lot of sound on high air pressures.

It sounds as though the beating reed would change tones depending on air pressure, so theoretically one could change the sound by pumping faster and generating more pressure.  I'm not sure ours works that way, but right now I couldn't say for sure.

Most of the harmoniums I'm viewing on the internet look like portable boxes.  Ours isn't like that.  It appears to be a Victorian pump organ, almost identical to this:

I now remember that a harmonium may indeed be a small portable organ.

It is a free reed that stands in tune better with air pressure variations, not a beating reed. Pipe organs have pressure regulators on their wind supply to keep the pressure constant. It would not at all surprise me to find that pump organs have a pressure regulator as well.

We had a pump organ here at the station for a while, as a donation for a fund raising auction. The cosmetic restoration was fabulous; the technical restoration, not so good. It did play, and it was a lot of work! I could have had this for a couple hundred $$ and passed it up, as I would really like an electronic instrument with real pipe organ tone. (And I do not have a lot of room for a full size console!)

Quote from: Seze Mune
OK, this has a lot of interesting information.  If I'm reading you correctly, everything living or 'dead' emits electromagnetic radiation by virtue of the fact that it exists in a physical world and is composed of atoms and their subdivisions. Electromagnetic radiation includes visible light, radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma-rays, infrared and ultraviolet, the difference being how much energy they're packing as the particles travel in wave-like forms....something like the motion of spermatozoa, only perhaps a lot more mathematically predictable.

It would boggle most people's minds if they really realized just how much electromagnetic radiation is floating all around them!

Quote from: Seze Mune
We humans, much to my surprise, emit infrared light...which is why we can be picked up with night vision goggles.  Nothing in nature goes to waste, so I'm intrigued by the possible interplay between this fact and the natural world. Snakes pick up on infrared heat signals, but not the light.  Animals which have 'eyeshine' at night - notably cats and dogs (and lions?   ;)) - have a tissue layer at the back of their eyes to reflect light back through the retina which makes it more available for photoreceptor capture.  Humans don't have this layer, but I suppose it's possible to splice DNA with this potential...an interesting potential for the RDA in the next iteration of avatars.   :o

Humans give off quite a bit of infrared light-- about 100 watts worth continuously, while awake.

Snakes pick up infrared light signals that are sensed by us as heat (if it was strong enough for us to feel), but sensed as light by the much more sensitive receptors snakes have. All electromagnetic radiation is considered 'light', but the term 'light' in popular context is usually reserved for visible light.

Lions do have that layer as well-- all cats do. Sometimes, when I want to do a quick check of where the cats are at night, I will shine a light in the pen and count the eyeballs. That layer would be very helpful for astronomical observing!

Quote from: Seze Mune
Let me quote something as background for my next few paragraphs:

"In quantum physics, quantum coherence means that subatomic particles are able to cooperate.  These subatomic waves or particles not only know about each other, but also are highly interlinked by bands of common electromagnetic fields, so that they can communicate together.  They are like a multitude of tuning forks that all begin resonating together.  As the waves get into phase or synch, they begin acting like one giant wave and one giant subatomic particle.  It becomes difficult to tell them apart.  Many of the weird quantum effects seen in a single wave apply to the whole.  Something done to one of them will affect the others.

"Coherence establishes establishes communication.  It's like a subatomic telephone network.  The better the coherence, the finer the telephone network and the more refined wave patterns have a telephone.  The end result is also a bit like a large orchestra.  All the photons are playing together but as individual instruments that are able to carry on playing individual parts."

What you are describing here is the amplification of electromagnetic radiation by stimulated emission of radiation. When this happens at visible light frequencies, it is called a laser. Lasers emit coherent light, which has some really interesting properties. As someone who loves science, this is worth your while to study further. And you almost certainly have a laser available to play with, to try out some of the ideas.

Quote from: Seze Mune
In the early 1970s, physicist Fritz Albert Popp created a machine which looked like a large X-ray detector (EMI 9558QA selected typed).  This used a photomultiplier which allowed it to count light photon by photon.  Testing his machine with ethidium bromide applied to samples of DNA showed that DNA was one of the most essential storage places and emission sites of biophotons in the body.  Popp also had a special room 'so dark that only the barest few photons of light could be detected in it.'  Here he began to study the light emitted from living humans.  A healthy 27-year old woman was tested over nine months, resulting in data which showed that biophotons followed set rhythms of 7, 14, 32, 80 and 270 days when the emissions were identical.  Emissions for the right and left hands were correlated so that if there was an increase in one, there was also an increase in the other.  Subatomically, the hands were in phase.  There were other repeating rhythms as well.

When he contrasted these results with people who were not healthy, who had cancer, he discovered that these rhythms were missing, as was their coherence.  The patterns were scrambled.

With MS patients, it was the opposite. The patients were absorbing too much light and creating a super coherence which destroyed the delicate harmonic flexibility and individuality of the cells.

Popp decided that DNA uses light frequencies as a communication tool, a switch.  For example, apparently it's well known that you can blast a cell with such strong UV light that you destroy 99 percent of it including the DNA, yet you can repair it almost entirely within a single day by illuminating it with a very weak intensity of the very same wavelength.  No one can explain it, but it's said it's never been disputed.

So I guess people have been taking the atomic vibrational aspect seriously in medical applications, but there are still many further advances to be made.  I think metaphorically, we're still in the dark ages medically speaking.

This sounds very much to me like 'fringe science'. Have these experiments ever been repeated by credible researchers? I am sure that there is definitely some diagnostic value in doing this kind of imaging (and enough evergy is emitted by the body that a photomultiplier is not really necessary. We have far better thermal imaging systems today). But it would not be the panacea that Mr. Popp reports.

Quote from: Seze Mune
And on some level, the whole discussion brings a new intuitive perspective to Matthew 6:22, 23.   ;)

An interesting take on this scripture. Although we know today that your overall health is not necessarily related to the health of your eyes, in the days of Jesus, this relationship was very much true. This passage of scripture has more meaning and applications in our lives metaphorically, than it does physically.

Irayo fpi pangkxo sìltsan!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Seze Mune

#10
"Fringe science" has multiple connotations to me.  

Human curiosity investigates not only the main current downstream from 'acceptable' science, but also the eddies and riptides of thought which curl out from that.  The inertia of mainstream science is difficult to overcome, and it would be interesting to study the psychosocial aspects of this.  Used to be that the Catholic Church circumscribed scientific study a la Galileo, but now mainstream scientists police their own members and those who wander from the herd are often culled.  Who knows how many potentially fruitful discoveries have been aborted before they could be fully investigated due to this process.

Hmm. It's possible that Einstein considered some of his own science to be 'fringe science' when he derided it as 'spukhafte Fernwirkung' (spooky action at a distance), and refused to accept the implications in terms of entanglement.

Now we have OPERA's findings about neutrinos going faster than light, which have been confirmed at a six-sigma significance which means (after 16,000 events in the last 2 years) that it is certainly correct.  These findings shred the validity and reliability of Einstein's special theory of relativity upon which (I think) most science is based.  To explain how neutrinos can do this, scientists are using the postulates of string theory, including the assumption of extra unobservable dimensions in space.  But the string theories have been subsumed in the 1990s by the M-theory which I don't begin to understand, but which Stephen Hawking among others believes to be the best candidate for an over-arching theory of Everything.  But when you base sciences on unobservable and therefore unprovable and untestable dimensions of space (11, at the moment), then to me that takes on the aura of fringe science.  

Mind you, I admit I am a layperson here; however, I think it's valuable for scientists to understand the trickle down effect of current scientific thought on lightweight science dilettantes like myself, if only to see how far down their comprehensions have percolated into the grassroots.

Seze Mune

#11
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 12, 2012, 02:48:03 AM
Quote from: Seze Mune
And on some level, the whole discussion brings a new intuitive perspective to Matthew 6:22, 23.   ;)

An interesting take on this scripture. Although we know today that your overall health is not necessarily related to the health of your eyes, in the days of Jesus, this relationship was very much true. This passage of scripture has more meaning and applications in our lives metaphorically, than it does physically.

Irayo fpi pangkxo sìltsan!

Nìngay tìprrtehu!

I guess we aren't really sure whether overall health is diagnosable by an examination of the eye, but I think we might assume there may be some diagnostic value.

For example, lack of vitamin A and vitamin B12 are evident in reduced eye function. The increased potential for stroke can be inferred from the condition of the retina.  Bloodshot eyes can indicate high blood pressure.  Weaker eyesight might indicate diabetes and cholesterol levels can be detected through the eyes.  Eye hemorrhage might be clues to diabetes as well as leukemia. Ocular blood vessels can indicate the condition of the general circulatory system.  A swollen optic nerve and a wash of blood on the retina might be evidence of a brain tumor.  Neoplasms in the eye would indicate breast cancer in women or lung cancer in men, while a swollen but pale optic nerve occurs in multiple sclerosis.

Then again there is iridology, which has a checkered track record.

Personally, I think it possible that the quote derived from ancient practice of meditation where under certain conditions one supposedly experiences enlightenment through the action of the pineal gland which some call the 'third eye'.  I concur that the quote is meant to be used metaphorically, and that its basic meaning is intuited rather than literal. :)

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Seze Mune on February 12, 2012, 09:23:29 AM
"Fringe science" has multiple connotations to me.  

Human curiosity investigates not only the main current downstream from 'acceptable' science, but also the eddies and riptides of thought which curl out from that.  The inertia of mainstream science is difficult to overcome, and it would be interesting to study the psychosocial aspects of this.  Used to be that the Catholic Church circumscribed scientific study a la Galileo, but now mainstream scientists police their own members and those who wander from the herd are often culled.  Who knows how many potentially fruitful discoveries have been aborted before they could be fully investigated due to this process.

I thin we both know history is full of mainstream resistance to new ideas. But all the valid new ideas generally have solid underpinnings in existing science. When things don't have these underpinnings, they are called 'fringe science'. IMHO, Dr. Popp's research fits in that category.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Hmm. It's possible that Einstein considered some of his own science to be 'fringe science' when he derided it as 'spukhafte Fernwirkung' (spooky action at a distance), and refused to accept the implications in terms of entanglement.

A lot of Einstein is hard to believe. But if you look carefully at his work, you will see the 'seeds' of his ideas are all plainly evident in the  work of scients like Lorentz, Maxwell, and many others. More than anything, Einstein simply 'connected the dots'. And Einstein wasn't always right, either. But he was always at least close. Entanglement is one of those things we still have much to learn about.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Now we have OPERA's findings about neutrinos going faster than light, which have been confirmed at a six-sigma significance which means (after 16,000 events in the last 2 years) that it is certainly correct.  These findings shred the validity and reliability of Einstein's special theory of relativity upon which (I think) most science is based.  To explain how neutrinos can do this, scientists are using the postulates of string theory, including the assumption of extra unobservable dimensions in space.  But the string theories have been subsumed in the 1990s by the M-theory which I don't begin to understand, but which Stephen Hawking among others believes to be the best candidate for an over-arching theory of Everything.  But when you base sciences on unobservable and therefore unprovable and untestable dimensions of space (11, at the moment), then to me that takes on the aura of fringe science.

The OPERA results are certainly very interesting. But despite the six-sigma significance of the results, the scientists do believe they made an error somewhere that they simply cannot see themselves. If it is shown in the end that these measurements are indeed accurate (and they are extraordinarily hard to make), it will turn the physics world upside down. Special and general relativity have held up to every test they have been put to, except where they break down at the quantum level. Perhaps we are observing a heretofore unknown quantum effect. But as good scientists who are willing to either have made a great discovery, or be tripped up by an unforeseen error, they are taking a careful, measured approach. There are one or two other facilities in the world that might be able to repeat this experiment. If they get the same results as OPERA, we should all be wearing our physics seat belts...   

Quote from: Seze Mune
Mind you, I admit I am a layperson here; however, I think it's valuable for scientists to understand the trickle down effect of current scientific thought on lightweight science dilettantes like myself, if only to see how far down their comprehensions have percolated into the grassroots.

I would be kidding myself if I said that I, too am anything but a layperson. But I have had enough exposure to science and technology to know how something should 'smell'. Even then, my intuition has not always been correct. But this is what keep science and technology interesting!

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Seze Mune on February 12, 2012, 01:31:59 PM

Nìngay tìprrtehu!

I guess we aren't really sure whether overall health is diagnosable by an examination of the eye, but I think we might assume there may be some diagnostic value.

For example, lack of vitamin A and vitamin B12 are evident in reduced eye function. The increased potential for stroke can be inferred from the condition of the retina.  Bloodshot eyes can indicate high blood pressure.  Weaker eyesight might indicate diabetes and cholesterol levels can be detected through the eyes.  Eye hemorrhage might be clues to diabetes as well as leukemia. Ocular blood vessels can indicate the condition of the general circulatory system.  A swollen optic nerve and a wash of blood on the retina might be evidence of a brain tumor.  Neoplasms in the eye would indicate breast cancer in women or lung cancer in men, while a swollen but pale optic nerve occurs in multiple sclerosis.

Then again there is iridology, which has a checkered track record.

Ah, you got me there! Actually, you can deduce these things from a lot of different tissues. Its just a lot easier in the eyes.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Personally, I think it possible that the quote derived from ancient practice of meditation where under certain conditions one supposedly experiences enlightenment through the action of the pineal gland which some call the 'third eye'.  I concur that the quote is meant to be used metaphorically, and that its basic meaning is intuited rather than literal. :)

Hmmm... Pineal gland! This is one of the least understood parts of the body. It is indeed thought to be the remaining vestige of a light/vision sensor. Beyond that, it is not well understood. But consider that this might be part of the spirit/physical body connection system. However, I don't think that that connection is quantifiable, because God never intended it to be quantifiable. That our body has a connection to our spirit is pretty clear. But it could be spread throughout the brain, or perhaps throughout the body.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Seze Mune

#14
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 12, 2012, 09:42:54 PM
Quote from: Seze Mune on February 12, 2012, 01:31:59 PM

Personally, I think it possible that the quote derived from ancient practice of meditation where under certain conditions one supposedly experiences enlightenment through the action of the pineal gland which some call the 'third eye'.  I concur that the quote is meant to be used metaphorically, and that its basic meaning is intuited rather than literal. :)

Hmmm... Pineal gland! This is one of the least understood parts of the body. It is indeed thought to be the remaining vestige of a light/vision sensor. Beyond that, it is not well understood. But consider that this might be part of the spirit/physical body connection system. However, I don't think that that connection is quantifiable, because God never intended it to be quantifiable. That our body has a connection to our spirit is pretty clear. But it could be spread throughout the brain, or perhaps throughout the body.

Between you and me, I'm not sure if I can say that God intended for anything in particular to be quantifiable.  I think it is humans who create the properties of quantifiability.  In my opinion, it is all a creative attempt to approach an understanding of God, whether in mathematical or taxonomic terms.  I think the basic trouble with this approach is that God cannot be understood at that level.

Metaphorically, I think of humans as particles with God receptors.  Perhaps that is what the pineal gland is, at least partly.  Maybe one can use the pineal receptor to link to the Godhood, but the experience is so ineffable that it doesn't translate.  If someone wants to understand it, s/he has to actuate their own receptor - and maybe that's exactly what God - whatever It is - intended. Imo, science can only cover all the bases if it develops both the physical and the spiritual sciences.  Unfortunately, current science doesn't seem to allow for anyone to make the case for spiritual sciences.

It's kind of funny that current science has to posit unobservable and untestable and therefore unknowable dimensions in order to make the theoretical mathematics of physics work, yet somehow spiritual dimensions which are unobservable and unknowable in terms of current mainstream scientific protocol are scoffed at and scorned.  Yet mainstream science has to create things out of thin air in order to make their theories actually work....like quantum chromodynamics which has been under development (read 'making it up') since the 1970s, and is considered a key ingredient in the Standard Model of particle physics.

You know, ma 'Eylan, when I think about it....I go back to the idea about the five physical senses.  We try to understand ourselves in relation to the world around us with only these five senses.  That doesn't mean that's all there is 'out there' to understand.  Perhaps the pineal is a gateway to another sense which could help us understand ourselves and our world at another (and maybe more valid) level.  At that level, perhaps the five senses have no relevance and therefore the current scientific model breaks down.  I doubt there is a special theory of relativity which will marry those two frameworks of comprehension.

Oh, and as far as quirky vestigial organs goes, I think the appendix is a pretty cute one.  They still don't seem to know what that's all about or why we still have it.

'Oma Tirea

I never noticed the prevalence of perfect 5ths/4ths being common throughout sci-fi scores, although it makes sense :)

Quote from: Ikran Ahiyìk on February 10, 2012, 09:23:23 PM
Pitch of an octave above it = 2 * Pitch of a note

Pitch of a perfect 5th above it = 27/12 * Pitch of a note, ~ 3/2 * ...

Oh, base on my limited music theory knowledge, that parallel fifths and octaves are forbidden in polyphony Baroque music, especially the choral one. Any appearance means something very special. You'll also find that by just giving you a C and G you can't define whether it's major or minor.. they sounds the same.

And one more.. I remember I'm told something briefly in Physics lesson, different ratios of overtone creates the sound quality, without it you can't figure out it's played by what instrument. Fifths and octaves may sightly change the quality. Increase the volume of course.

The reason there are 2 different 5th is music is due to a little thing called equal temperament.  This assumes that the ratio between any two semitones (or any interval for that matter) is the same.  Since 2*f will always be an octave up, the equation to determine the proper frequency of a pitch is an exponential one.  The equation is f=r*2^(s/12) where r is your reference frequency (usually A4/440, but can range from 436 to 446), s is the number of semitones up or down from your reference frequency, and f is the frequency of your pitch in Hz.

A harmonic 5th has a +1.955 cent discrepancy from an equal tempered 5th.  I've seen some bassits/guitarists tune using the harmonic method, but it doesn't work because those little discrepancies add up:

1.955 for 2 strings
3.910 for 3 strings
5.865 for 4 strings (now noticeably out of tune)
7.820 for 5 strings
9.775 for 6 strings

For tuning across 11 5th harmonically (e.g. when tuning a piano or harp), it's 17.595 off when you reach that last 5th, and you'll hear some unpleasant waves (interference).

For those interested on how off a harmonic is when compared to its closes equally tempered equivalent:

1: 0 cents (fundamental)
2: 0 cents (perfect octave)
3: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
4: 0 cents (perfect octave)
5: -13.7 cents from a major 3rd
6: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
7: -31.2 cents from a minor 7th
8: 0 cents (perfect octave)
9: +3.91 cents from a major 2nd
10: -13.7 cents from a major 3rd
11: -48.7 cents from a tritone
12: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
13: +40.5 cents from a minor 6th
14: -31.2 cents from a minor 7th
15: -11.7 cents from a major 7th
16: 0 cents (perfect octave)

If you make some rounding adjustments (you may have to stretch it), you can see where we get the major scale from, as well as why 3rds, 5ths, and 6ths end up being labeled as "consonant" while everything else is labeled as "dissonant."

Also, I've been experimenting somewhat with various timbres with FL's Harmor, and additive synthesizer.  With synthesis, thousands of different timbres are possible, more than any acoustic instrument could ever offer.  Unharmonic (detuned) harmonics, for instance :)

[img]http://swokaikran.skxawng.lu/sigbar/nwotd.php?p=2b[/img]

ÌTXTSTXRR!!

Srake serar le'Ìnglìsìa lì'fyayä aylì'ut?  Nari si älofoniru rutxe!!

Seze Mune

Quote from: 'Oma Tirea on February 13, 2012, 04:24:18 AM
I never noticed the prevalence of perfect 5ths/4ths being common throughout sci-fi scores, although it makes sense :)

Quote from: Ikran Ahiyìk on February 10, 2012, 09:23:23 PM
Pitch of an octave above it = 2 * Pitch of a note

Pitch of a perfect 5th above it = 27/12 * Pitch of a note, ~ 3/2 * ...

Oh, base on my limited music theory knowledge, that parallel fifths and octaves are forbidden in polyphony Baroque music, especially the choral one. Any appearance means something very special. You'll also find that by just giving you a C and G you can't define whether it's major or minor.. they sounds the same.

And one more.. I remember I'm told something briefly in Physics lesson, different ratios of overtone creates the sound quality, without it you can't figure out it's played by what instrument. Fifths and octaves may sightly change the quality. Increase the volume of course.

The reason there are 2 different 5th is music is due to a little thing called equal temperament.  This assumes that the ratio between any two semitones (or any interval for that matter) is the same.  Since 2*f will always be an octave up, the equation to determine the proper frequency of a pitch is an exponential one.  The equation is f=r*2^(s/12) where r is your reference frequency (usually A4/440, but can range from 436 to 446), s is the number of semitones up or down from your reference frequency, and f is the frequency of your pitch in Hz.

A harmonic 5th has a +1.955 cent discrepancy from an equal tempered 5th.  I've seen some bassits/guitarists tune using the harmonic method, but it doesn't work because those little discrepancies add up:

1.955 for 2 strings
3.910 for 3 strings
5.865 for 4 strings (now noticeably out of tune)
7.820 for 5 strings
9.775 for 6 strings

For tuning across 11 5th harmonically (e.g. when tuning a piano or harp), it's 17.595 off when you reach that last 5th, and you'll hear some unpleasant waves (interference).

For those interested on how off a harmonic is when compared to its closes equally tempered equivalent:

1: 0 cents (fundamental)
2: 0 cents (perfect octave)
3: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
4: 0 cents (perfect octave)
5: -13.7 cents from a major 3rd
6: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
7: -31.2 cents from a minor 7th
8: 0 cents (perfect octave)
9: +3.91 cents from a major 2nd
10: -13.7 cents from a major 3rd
11: -48.7 cents from a tritone
12: +1.96 cents from a perfect 5th
13: +40.5 cents from a minor 6th
14: -31.2 cents from a minor 7th
15: -11.7 cents from a major 7th
16: 0 cents (perfect octave)

If you make some rounding adjustments (you may have to stretch it), you can see where we get the major scale from, as well as why 3rds, 5ths, and 6ths end up being labeled as "consonant" while everything else is labeled as "dissonant."

Also, I've been experimenting somewhat with various timbres with FL's Harmor, and additive synthesizer.  With synthesis, thousands of different timbres are possible, more than any acoustic instrument could ever offer.  Unharmonic (detuned) harmonics, for instance :)



Whoa, ma 'Oma, this is a little over my head!  I will say, however, that I was taught to tune my cello using the harmonic method but since I was just a music duffer, it wasn't terribly significant.

And what does the 'cents' mean?  Parts of 100?  Unharmonic harmonics?  That means something which is used as a harmonic but in a way that's unusual?

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä

Quote from: Seze Mune on February 12, 2012, 10:51:45 PM
Between you and me, I'm not sure if I can say that God intended for anything in particular to be quantifiable.  I think it is humans who create the properties of quantifiability.  In my opinion, it is all a creative attempt to approach an understanding of God, whether in mathematical or taxonomic terms.  I think the basic trouble with this approach is that God cannot be understood at that level.

Metaphorically, I think of humans as particles with God receptors.  Perhaps that is what the pineal gland is, at least partly.  Maybe one can use the pineal receptor to link to the Godhood, but the experience is so ineffable that it doesn't translate.  If someone wants to understand it, s/he has to actuate their own receptor - and maybe that's exactly what God - whatever It is - intended. Imo, science can only cover all the bases if it develops both the physical and the spiritual sciences.  Unfortunately, current science doesn't seem to allow for anyone to make the case for spiritual sciences.

First of all, ma Seze, a cent is 1/100 of a semitone. This table of information by 'ma Tirea shows why equal temperment is, at best, a compromise to solve the problem of the Pythagorean comma. I am going to see if I can find an example of the same piece of music that is played in meantone ane equal temperment and post links to them here.

As far as God goes, There are three ways the God operates in relation to us. The first is areas where He wants it to be plainly evident that it is He who is responsible for some phenomenon. The second, and one we are concerned with here, is phenomena that He wants us to find Him by scientific inquiry into why things are the way they are. The third are areas He does not want to revel to us during our physical lifetimes. This is where faith comes in, and this is another whole can of worms, that is another topic entirely! So yes, I think there are things God wants us to be able to more or less definitely quantify, and other He never wants us to quantify. Between these two is much of life!

Quote from: Seze Mune
It's kind of funny that current science has to posit unobservable and untestable and therefore unknowable dimensions in order to make the theoretical mathematics of physics work, yet somehow spiritual dimensions which are unobservable and unknowable in terms of current mainstream scientific protocol are scoffed at and scorned.  Yet mainstream science has to create things out of thin air in order to make their theories actually work....like quantum chromodynamics which has been under development (read 'making it up') since the 1970s, and is considered a key ingredient in the Standard Model of particle physics.

I disagree strongly that Quantum Chromodynamics is 'made up'. The Standard Model of Particle Physics has been one of the most sucessful scientific models ever developed, and there are many things we have discovered that the model has correctly predicted.

The deal with quantum chromodynamics is finding a 'language' to describe what is actually going on. We only deal in our world with electromagnetism and gravity. The nuclear weak and strong forces are so foreign to our daily lives (and senses) that describing them becomes quite a challenge. And measuring things going on with, specially the strong force, is incredibly difficult because it works over such small distances. So overall, it does not at all surprise me that they are discovering strong hints suggesting the Higgs boson is real. Based on our track record with the Standard Model, it is quite expected to be found.

Things will get really interesting when they get the LHC up to design energy. This will happen after this year's run. They will then shut the machine down for 2-3 years and permanently fix the magnet problem that is preventing the machine from running at design energy. We will learn more new things then!

Quote from: Seze Mune
You know, ma 'Eylan, when I think about it....I go back to the idea about the five physical senses.  We try to understand ourselves in relation to the world around us with only these five senses.  That doesn't mean that's all there is 'out there' to understand.  Perhaps the pineal is a gateway to another sense which could help us understand ourselves and our world at another (and maybe more valid) level.  At that level, perhaps the five senses have no relevance and therefore the current scientific model breaks down.  I doubt there is a special theory of relativity which will marry those two frameworks of comprehension.

I will agree that we have some 'spiritual senses' that operate to a greater or lesser degree in most people. Because this sense does not have a corporeal component, it is hard to describe or relate to. But I know it works in me, and I have experienced it in working closely with animals. That said, we also build machines (like the LHC) to sense what we cannot sense with our senses, and present the resulting information to us in a way our senses can assimilate.

Quote from: Seze Mune
Oh, and as far as quirky vestigial organs goes, I think the appendix is a pretty cute one.  They still don't seem to know what that's all about or why we still have it.

The pineal gland has always fascinated me. I haven't read up lately what the current state of research is concerning it. I will have to do that.

Yawey ngahu!
pamrel si ro [email protected]

Seze Mune

#18
Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 14, 2012, 03:29:23 PM


First of all, ma Seze, a cent is 1/100 of a semitone. This table of information by 'ma Tirea shows why equal temperment is, at best, a compromise to solve the problem of the Pythagorean comma. I am going to see if I can find an example of the same piece of music that is played in meantone ane equal temperment and post links to them here.


I would like that, ma 'Eylan.  I don't really understand meantone.  Why is it 'mean' tone?  As in mean, median, mode, etc?

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 14, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
As far as God goes, There are three ways the God operates in relation to us. The first is areas where He wants it to be plainly evident that it is He who is responsible for some phenomenon. The second, and one we are concerned with here, is phenomena that He wants us to find Him by scientific inquiry into why things are the way they are. The third are areas He does not want to revel to us during our physical lifetimes. This is where faith comes in, and this is another whole can of worms, that is another topic entirely! So yes, I think there are things God wants us to be able to more or less definitely quantify, and other He never wants us to quantify. Between these two is much of life!

I enjoyed your explanation, ma 'Eylan.  I do not quite see it that way, but the fact that we differ in our understanding here does not make either of us wrong.  It is another topic for a different thread, I agree.  In fact, it might be a topic which is better discussed privately some time.  We all have different understandings on this topic and I think God is quite happy to take us where we're at and provide opportunities for learning....  As humans, there is no way we can really comprehend the totality of God anyway, so I'm sure some of the learning takes place in a non-physical state later on, which is why I don't think of us as wrong, but just on different rungs of the same ladder.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 14, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
I disagree strongly that Quantum Chromodynamics is 'made up'. The Standard Model of Particle Physics has been one of the most sucessful scientific models ever developed, and there are many things we have discovered that the model has correctly predicted.

The deal with quantum chromodynamics is finding a 'language' to describe what is actually going on. We only deal in our world with electromagnetism and gravity. The nuclear weak and strong forces are so foreign to our daily lives (and senses) that describing them becomes quite a challenge. And measuring things going on with, specially the strong force, is incredibly difficult because it works over such small distances. So overall, it does not at all surprise me that they are discovering strong hints suggesting the Higgs boson is real. Based on our track record with the Standard Model, it is quite expected to be found.

Things will get really interesting when they get the LHC up to design energy. This will happen after this year's run. They will then shut the machine down for 2-3 years and permanently fix the magnet problem that is preventing the machine from running at design energy. We will learn more new things then!

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on any toes here.  Mathematics is a language and like any language, it is made up. It is a tool to describe something which may exist, whether or not the mathematical language is ever applied to it.  I would say the association with color is certainly 'made up' in that it doesn't actually relate to color per se at all. That doesn't mean it doesn't actually describe something.  It does.

Also, theoretical math, physics and other sciences will also back-engineer things, which is, in a sense, making them up. Darwinism, for example, is back-engineered.  It does appear to fit when viewed with a macro lens, but there are also great mysteries which it cannot explain.  It is also applied to psychology and human culture which is an obvious case of back-engineering imho.  If it were actually true in the deepest sense, then most of humanity would have been wiped out long ago and we would never have to worry about an overpopulation problem.

Einstein used his imagination and intuition to cast his theories and then back engineered them to fit, as he did with E=mc2 which bubbled up in his imagination as he played his violin. "Einstein only employed words or other symbols (presumably mathematical) -- in what he explicitly called a secondary translation step -- after he was able to solve his problems through the formal manipulation of internally imagined images, feelings, and architectures. "I very rarely think in words at all. A thought comes, and I may try to express it in words afterwards," he wrote...
'

So when I say that certain theories and maths are made up, I am not saying they don't work, and I'm not saying they aren't descriptive and useful.  They are a creative attempt to understand God, but they are as created as a painting...an illustration of reality, but not reality itself.  Scientists are in the process of creating - making up - a mathematical sentence to illustrate their current comprehension, which will continue to change as it expands.


Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 14, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
I will agree that we have some 'spiritual senses' that operate to a greater or lesser degree in most people. Because this sense does not have a corporeal component, it is hard to describe or relate to. But I know it works in me, and I have experienced it in working closely with animals. That said, we also build machines (like the LHC) to sense what we cannot sense with our senses, and present the resulting information to us in a way our senses can assimilate.

Yes.  The LHC is a macro version of our some of our five senses. It speaks to the physical world.  The spiritual senses as you say have no physical counterpart, although we can translate some of these into actions, e.g. providing loving support for orphaned animals or forgiving someone a trespass or a misunderstanding.

Quote from: `Eylan Ayfalulukanä on February 14, 2012, 03:29:23 PM

The pineal gland has always fascinated me. I haven't read up lately what the current state of research is concerning it. I will have to do that.

If you find out anything good, I'm all ears!   ;)