Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Quantum sound theory or the unified field of everything...

page: 6
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER
But, you can.

Sound is the vibration of matter. There must be matter present, for there to be sound.

Light is the vibration of the ether, or electric and magnetic fields that sit in the ether.


There is no 'aether'. Electric and magnetic fields oscillating are not sound. At all. Period.

You can't call it "vibration", because there is no material medium to vibrate. So, there are no vibrations involved in E or H fields propagating EM, like light.




When you say "let there be light", you impart energy into matter, causing it to vibrate in "longitudinal" waves, or "pressure waves".

That "sound energy" then excites the electrons in the atoms to jump up into higher energy states. These electrons then fall back down into their ground states and emit photons, which are "transverse" waves.Those photons enter our eye and we see the light.


Not. At. All. Sound does not cause electron transitions.



The energy in those photons comes from the energy that was in the sound.

This is scientific reality.


Perhaps in your universe, but in mine, you aren't going to get electron transitions in air from sound.



Energy is conserved. It is neither created nor destroyed. So the sound energy "MUST" transform into light energy. There is no other way. And so the Bible must be right.

edit on 25-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)


It is conserved. The sound is dissipated in the air (I suppose you're going on about spoken words and not dolphin squeaks) as heat. And in the environment as heat as well. Sound is of spectacularly low energy for the most part so it's not going to cause transitions. It just vanishes as heat so miniscule it can't be measured.

Seriously, for God to "speak" in words like a person, He'd have to create a big bubble of air around His head. But after the sound hit the edge of the bubble, it wouldn't propagate, even if it WERE God saying it.

I feel like I'm wrestling the pig here. Sound does not propagate in a vacuum. Space is a vacuum. Sound is slow. If God said "let there be light" 6000 years ago, it wouldn't have hit the edge of the system yet. Give it up. It's a bogus concept.




posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Space, again is not a vacuum. Our science can't even find most of it. They call it dark matter, but what if dark matter is aether? Can you prove that it isn't?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

I feel like I'm wrestling the pig here.


Can you tell me where the energy in the light comes from?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmac5150
reply to post by Bedlam
 


Space, again is not a vacuum. Our science can't even find most of it. They call it dark matter, but what if dark matter is aether? Can you prove that it isn't?


A particle per cubic meter is a damned close approximation. I assure you (and you'd know if you looked into it) that sound isn't going to propagate in that.

Dark matter is not luminiferous aether. And you can't prove a negative. Your burden as claimant is to prove it is.

However, you're going to be hamstrung by that - we've known for a hundred years that aether is not needed to explain EM, which is why it was invented to begin with.

Propagation of EM in some medium as sound is propagated in air is not only unneeded, it's against observed fact. That LCD you're looking at? Wouldn't work if there was an aether.

Dark matter is likely neutrinos. No interaction with matter to speak of. And the nature of its darkness is that it doesn't interact with EM. A medium for propagating EM that doesn't interact with EM is awfully lame, no?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Bedlam

I feel like I'm wrestling the pig here.


Can you tell me where the energy in the light comes from?



Which light? They're all different.It's not from sound though.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   


Dark matter is likely neutrinos. No interaction with matter to speak of. And the nature of its darkness is that it doesn't interact with EM. A medium for propagating EM that doesn't interact with EM is awfully lame, no?


Likely? Neutrinos "likely" have mass, but that mass has never been measured. For a lot of missing "stuff", there must be one helluva alot of neutrinos.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SQUEALER

Originally posted by Bedlam

I feel like I'm wrestling the pig here.


Can you tell me where the energy in the light comes from?



Which light? They're all different.It's not from sound though.


I mean light in the visible range. You know, the light you can see with your eyes. The same light that appears in Sonoluminescence.

I know the "sono" refers to sound waves, i.e. pressure waves. What I'd like to know, is where does the light get its energy from.

You say sound has nothing to do with it, so before I can understand your argument, I'd like to know where you think the energy in the light comes from.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmac5150
Likely? Neutrinos "likely" have mass, but that mass has never been measured. For a lot of missing "stuff", there must be one helluva alot of neutrinos.


There are. But whether it's neutrinos or not, a key characteristic of dark matter is that it does NOT interact with EM, making it a poor candidate for 'aether'.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER

I mean light in the visible range. You know, the light you can see with your eyes. The same light that appears in Sonoluminescence.


Ah. You had just gone off on a multipost wild hare about sound waves from God's lips causing light, I wasn't sure what you were on about there.



I know the "sono" refers to sound waves, i.e. pressure waves. What I'd like to know, is where does the light get its energy from.

You say sound has nothing to do with it, so before I can understand your argument, I'd like to know where you think the energy in the light comes from.


As I stated upthread, the light comes from heating which occurs when a cavitation bubble collapses. The sound doesn't produce the light by causing electron transitions in the fluid. And, of course, the sound isn't "let there be light", but more like "squeeee", unless that's Goddish for "let there be light", I suppose. Here's a nice link to a pdf where they explain it in pre-chewed fashion without becoming too inaccurate in the process.

It's true it's called sonoluminescence, and that's because it's observed when, under very controlled circumstances, you produce cavitation bubbles in a gas-saturated fluid with certain shear and surface tension characteristics. It's not like you can shout at an aquarium and get the effect. You also tend to need photomultipliers and very sensitive equipment.

Note that this wouldn't occur in a vacuum, because you're missing all the prerequisites, and because sound doesn't travel in a vacuum anyway.

eta: I should add for completeness that you can observe the effect of 'sonoluminescence' without any sound being present at all, any process that creates a cavitation bubble in the right sort of fluid medium will cause the same effect, from sub props to pistol shrimp claws. It's just easier to use ultrasound.

The effect of cavitational collapse induced light emission has taken on the mantle "sonoluminescence" even when there's no sound involved, simply because that was the condition under which it was first observed. So you have to sort of pick through it to see what sort of sononluminescence any article is discussing.

In a topic currently near and dear to MY heart, here's a link to an abstract. You can load the paper if you have a way to read a postscript file.



Single cavitation bubble luminescence (SCBL) induced by laser in contrast to single bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL) has no need in a sound field for a strong collapse and for light emission. The cavitation bubbles are produced by focused laser light and make the single strong collapse. As shown experimentally, the number of emitted photons from cavitation luminescence is much greater than it was observed in sonoluminescence due to the large bubble size during the final stage of collapse.


As you can see, there is a trend towards calling the phenomenon 'cavitation bubble luminescence', which is more accurate and less confusing.
edit on 26-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

The light comes from heating which occurs when a cavitation bubble collapses. The sound doesn't produce the light by causing electron transitions in the fluid.



Ok. Light comes from heating. I get it.

But, that heat, that is the problem, how does it get there?

It's clear to me, from what you're saying, that "heat energy" is converted into "light energy". So, there's conservation of energy, which I understand. Energy is just being transformed from "heat" into "light" form.

What's I'm still missing, is that mysterious "heat".

Does "sono" mean "heat" ?

Why did they call the effect "Sonoluminescence" and not "Thermoluminescence" ?

Did the scientists just make a mistake?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER
Ok. Light comes from heating. I get it.

But, that heat, that is the problem, how does it get there?


Adiabatic compression of the gas in the bubble when it collapses.




What's I'm still missing, is that mysterious "heat".

Does "sono" mean "heat" ?

Why did they call the effect "Sonoluminescence" and not "Thermoluminescence" ?

Did the scientists just make a mistake?



Reread my post. I found some nice material and added it to the end. Sonoluminescence is a catchall term for any bubble collapse luminescence, because that's where it was initially observed. Except now they're calling it SCBL, for single cavitation bubble luminescence, because it's a less confusing term.

Again, you can get "sonoluminescence" from ANY process that creates cavitation bubbles of the right size in the right fluid under the right conditions. From sub props to lasers.



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Again, you can get "sonoluminescence" from ANY process that creates cavitation bubbles of the right size in the right fluid under the right conditions. From sub props to lasers.


So, "Sound waves" can create "cavitation bubbles" ?

What other known process can create cavitation bubbles, other than sound?

Ok. I see. "Light" can create "Light". Through the process "Light laser -> cavitation bubble -> adiabatic compression heat -> atomic excitation -> electron fall back to ground state -> Light emission"

Or, I see "Sound" can create "Light". Through the process "Sound wave -> cavitation bubble -> adiabatic compression heat -> atomic excitation -> electron fall back to ground state ->: Light emission"

So, both Sound and Light can create Light.

Are there any other processes that can create light through this intermediate "cavitation bubble" effect?



edit on 26-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER

So, "Sound waves" can create "cavitation bubbles" ?

What other known process can create cavitation bubbles, other than sound?


You quoted one I already posted multiple times - "sub props", as in "any process that can create a cavitation bubble" - ANY PROCESS. That includes pistol shrimp claws, prop washes and the like.



Ok. I see. "Light" can create "Light". Through the process "Light laser -> cavitation bubble -> adiabatic compression heat -> atomic excitation -> electron fall back to ground state -> Light emission"

Or, I see "Sound" can create "Light". Through the process "Sound wave -> cavitation bubble -> adiabatic compression heat -> atomic excitation -> electron fall back to ground state ->: Light emission"

So, both Sound and Light can create Light.


The heating caused by the compression creates light. As you state above, multiple processes (and some you prefer not to consider) can create cavitation bubbles. This ought to clue you in that sound isn't special in this process, but it seems you really don't want to hear that.

The method by which the bubbles are formed is irrelevant, which is why the terminology is changing to SCBL.

eta: at any rate, you seem to have accepted that SCBL is a very specialized process that you can't extrapolate to a general explanation for the god-utterance "let there be light" converting to universe-filling illumination. That's at least a start. I'd tend to interpret that as "Establish a condition in which radiative EM can propagate freely through space-time" anyway, since it's obvious light is created through other processes and is not all remnant emission from an initial event, but that's just me.
edit on 26-5-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SQUEALER

So, "Sound waves" can create "cavitation bubbles" ?

What other known process can create cavitation bubbles, other than sound?


You quoted one I already posted multiple times - "sub props", as in "any process that can create a cavitation bubble" - ANY PROCESS. That includes pistol shrimp claws, prop washes and the like.


This is what is confusing to me. You say ANY PROCESS.

However, there are only two processes I know of in the universe.

1) longitudinal waves
2) transverse waves

All things that happen in the universe of phenomena are built on these two things. The two types of vibratory movements.

So, when you say "ANY PROCESS", I'm confused. Because it suggests that there are more types of vibratory motions that I haven't considered. And I don't know what they could be.

The longitudinal waves are characterized by "sound"
The transverse waves are characterized by "light"

Complex phenomena are built up from combination of these fundamental waves. It seems to me you're pointing to complex phenomena, and ignoring the fundamental reality that makes up those complex phenomena.

I could be wrong, though. I may be missing some essential thing. But, at the moment, I can't seem to see it.

Apart from "sound" and "light", what else is there in the universe that is not made up of sound or light?



posted on May, 26 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER


This is what is confusing to me. You say ANY PROCESS.

However, there are only two processes I know of in the universe.

1) longitudinal waves
2) transverse wave


What would you characterize a prop wash under?



All things that happen in the universe of phenomena are built on these two things. The two types of vibratory movements


Interesting...how would you characterize, say, an ionic bond?




The longitudinal waves are characterized by "sound"
The transverse waves are characterized by "light"


Sound is longitudinal. EM is generally transverse. Not all longitudinal waves are sound.
Not all transverse waves are EM.



Apart from "sound" and "light", what else is there in the universe that is not made up of sound or light?


Did you forget matter?

Again. and now I'm sure I'm wrestling the pig, you've been shown that either longitudinal or transverse waves, or mechanical shock can cause thermoluminesce, and I suspect you could do it with particle bombardment too. So much for being able to say God made all light by saying let there be light through sonoluminesce. That was your original statement. That's plumbed out. Now you seem to be arguing to argue. Give it up, man.



posted on May, 27 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by SQUEALER


This is what is confusing to me. You say ANY PROCESS.

However, there are only two processes I know of in the universe.

1) longitudinal waves
2) transverse wave


What would you characterize a prop wash under?



You are the enlightened one, that is what I was asking you. Remember, I'm the one lacking this knowledge.

I don't know what "prop wash" is.






All things that happen in the universe of phenomena are built on these two things. The two types of vibratory movements


Interesting...how would you characterize, say, an ionic bond?



I would characterize an ionic bond as transverse wave. According to my understanding the bond is electromagnetic in nature, and the particle that mediates the electromagnetic force is the photon. The photons are transverse, so the ionic bond must be transverse also.




Sound is longitudinal. EM is generally transverse. Not all longitudinal waves are sound.
Not all transverse waves are EM.


Well, examples would be nice.

I don't know any longitudinal wave that is not sound.

The longitudinal wave may not be of the right frequency to generate the experience of sound to the human ear.

But, it is still sound. Remember, the ordinary household dog can hear longitudinal waves of higher frequency than humans. So, just because we can't hear it, that doesn't mean no being in the universe can hear it. All living things are tuned to different parts of the sound spectrum.

When "God said, Let there be light". He may not have said it within the human ear range. He wouldn't have needed to anyway, since he hadn't created man yet. So, he said it for his own ear. And since god hears all things, the entire frequency range,. from the lowest frequency to the highest frequency, is the audible sound range for God.

Scientists know that sound creates forms out of formless matter.

You can see some YouTube demonstrations of this..e.g.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

That will give you a good idea of how "atoms" were created by sound. Excitation of these atoms then produces the light, just like the bible says.


Remember, the verse preceeding "God said, Let there be Light",



Genesis|1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
Genesis|1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


So that "earth" was "formless", just like the sand in those videos.

When God spoke, he introduced "sound waves", i.e. longitudinal waves in the formless matter, and exactly what happens in those YouTube videos, happened in the formless earth material that was present. You can look into your physics and chemistry books, at pictures of atomic orbitals, and see the same shapes.


The atomic orbitals are sound, the interaction between atomic orbitals, in forming bonds, are light.






Apart from "sound" and "light", what else is there in the universe that is not made up of sound or light?


Did you forget matter?

Again. and now I'm sure I'm wrestling the pig,



Matter is the medium. It doesn't "do" anything. It's not a process. It's the thing that is being worked on, transformed, and manifests the changes, caused by the processes.

So, I'm still waiting for you to explain what else exists other than sound and light. Stop avoiding the question, by using all this "pig" stuff. All you have to do is say it, whatever it is, that I'm missing, and I'll accept it.

We're already in agreement, that you're the wise one. I'm trying to learn here, what you know different from me?


edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-5-2013 by SQUEALER because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2013 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SQUEALER

I don't know what "prop wash" is.


If I were in the Navy, I'd tell you to get me a bottle of it.





I would characterize an ionic bond as transverse wave. According to my understanding the bond is electromagnetic in nature, and the particle that mediates the electromagnetic force is the photon. The photons are transverse, so the ionic bond must be transverse also.


It's not a wave at all.





Well, examples would be nice.


An EM wave in a waveguide can be longitudinal.



When "God said, Let there be light". He may not have said it within the human ear range. He wouldn't have needed to anyway, since he hadn't created man yet. So, he said it for his own ear. And since god hears all things, the entire frequency range,. from the lowest frequency to the highest frequency, is the audible sound range for God.


Even God would have to have a medium to speak into. Water maybe. Or air. Only space isn't those things, so even God couldn't cause sound waves to propagate through the universe.



Scientists know that sound creates forms out of formless matter.

That will give you a good idea of how "atoms" were created by sound. Excitation of these atoms then produces the light, just like the bible says.


No. What you're seeing are vibratory nodes in the material. The sand moves to the lower energy points. It's like a ball rolling downhill, only the hills are very small and the friction is low.

This isn't a way to 'create atoms'.




So that "earth" was "formless", just like the sand in those videos.

When God spoke, he introduced "sound waves", i.e. longitudinal waves in the formless matter, and exactly what happens in those YouTube videos, happened in the formless earth material that was present. You can look into your physics and chemistry books, at pictures of atomic orbitals, and see the same shapes.


The atomic orbitals are sound, the interaction between atomic orbitals, in forming bonds, are light.


Besides this being a sort of "just so" story, circles are pretty basic. Orbitals are not sound. Sound is a compression wave in matter. You're not getting that with an orbital. An orbital isn't even an 'orbit', it's a locus of increased probability that the electron typically stays within.

Interactions between electrons is due to electrostatic fields, not light.





Matter is the medium. It doesn't "do" anything. It's not a process. It's the thing that is being worked on, transformed, and manifests the changes, caused by the processes.


So, motion isn't a process? Yet it's not a wave.



So, I'm still waiting for you to explain what else exists other than sound and light. Stop avoiding the question, by using all this "pig" stuff. All you have to do is say it, whatever it is, that I'm missing, and I'll accept it.


I'm still waiting for you to come back to or re-establish some sort of target here. Initially, again, you said lightning was due to winds clapping together. Then you said that by saying 'let there be light' that sonoluminescence would create all the light there was. That seems to have been done to death at this point. Now it's sort of devolving into an endless argument over the wording of Genesis, a bit like one of the other posters you see on ATS who, having had his point addressed, tries to drag it into a Socratic reduction and flog you to death over terminology.

So I won't bring up the questions about multiple conflicting creation stories in the Bible, two of which are in Genesis alone, or the fact that God didn't seem to create the Earth, or air, or water, Or that the first creation story is of Mesopotamian origin.

BTW, it's a literary reference - George Bernard Shaw: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:57 PM
link   
All of the arguments stem from the supposed acoustical quality of the Creator's voice. What if the voice of the Creator is pure energy? After the Big Bang (or voice of God) energy expanded and the wavelengths stretched:


And there it is. Inflation happened, gave the seeds for structure in an otherwise uniform Universe, and then created a bath of matter and radiation in almost perfect (but, importantly, not quite), almost isotropic, almost homogeneous way. And it sets up everything our Universe needs for the Big Bang.
Once that happens, your Universe begins cooling as it expands. Now the radiation is free to have its wavelengths stretched as the Universe expands, the volume of the Universe increases even though the number of matter particles stays constant, and, eventually, gravity does its thing. Over time, the great cosmic structures we’ve come to discover form, and that’s our Universe!
Nat Geo

Science still has no real idea of what "dark matter" is.


We don’t understand all the caveats of inflation, or of dark energy, for that matter, including whether or not they’re related. But just a generation ago, we didn’t know anything at all about the energy inherent to spacetime, and now we know it to be an integral part of our Universe’s history! So when we say the Universe “Started With A Bang,” that’s just our observable Universe, and all the matter and energy in it. But something was before: empty spacetime, expanding exponentially. In physics, that’s also known as nothing, and it’s where everything came from, and where everything will return to in the future. Let’s never stop working to understand it a little better.
Nat Geo

There are some things we can never understand without at least looking at a spiritual component. I believe that is where science has failed, and will continue to do so.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join