On Nothing in a void.

[Write4U]

Jolly good, so can you quote the passage or passages in Tegmark's writing that gave you this notion of colours being "wavefunctions" of mixed primary colours? And then we can -perhaps - get to the bottom of all this.

I have not yet discovered a specific paper by Tegmark on colors, but the NOVA presentation of "The Great Math Mystery" does have a quote

NARRATOR: Our physical reality is a bit like a digital photograph, according to Max. The photo looks like the pond but as we move in closer, and closer, we can see it is really a field of pixels each represented by three numbers that specify the amount of red, green and blue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

 

[exchemist]

I have not yet discovered a specific paper by Tegmark on colors, but the NOVA presentation of "The Great Math Mystery" does have a quote
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/great-math-mystery.html

...which is apparently some sort of analogy for his notion of reality, but nothing whatsoever to do with the physics of light.

 

[exchemist]

True, because it is a hue produced by the combination of two yellows, which is a primary color and cannot be achieved by mixing of other colors.

Oh really?

There is something about colour perception here: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/light/Lesson-2/Color-Addition

which points out you have got it wrong, once again. For mixing transmitted coloured lights (e.g. in a theatre or on a TV screen) to produce a full variety of colours, you need red green and blue, yellow being obtained by a mixture of red and green .

For pigments (which work by absorbing everything except one colour range of light) you need "red" (properly magenta), "blue" (properly cyan) and yellow. There is a diagram showing the relationship.

But again, this lower school-level article is all about how to achieve perception of a full range of colours in the human optical system. It should not be taken as telling you anything about the physics of light itself.

 

[NotEinstein]

Well you must be a terrible teacher then....

But what does your inability to answer a simple question make you?

For those keeping count, Write4U's post #273 missed the mark on at least the following:
- Write4U still doesn't understand the difference between a frequency and a range of frequencies.

 

[Write4U]

But what does your inability to answer a simple question make you?

For those keeping count, Write4U's post #273 missed the mark on at least the following:
- Write4U still doesn't understand the difference between a frequency and a range of frequencies.

For those keeping count? Am I that important? A rare object to be studied and analyzed?

I'll save you the time. I took a MENSA test once and scored 70%. At another time I took an IQ test and scored 158. Of course I was younger and since then I may have experienced some neural loss, but I believe I am still capable of observation and processing of subtle and complicated ideas.

OK, enough biography.

In the previous posts, I have already shown the ranges of all the colors in the visible light spectrum in "nm", but I'll quote the narrative;

Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is the visible spectrum that is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight.[1] Visible light is usually defined as having wavelengths in the range of 400–700 nanometres (nm), or 4.00 × 10−7 to 7.00 × 10−7 m, between the infrared (with longer wavelengths) and the ultraviolet (with shorter wavelengths).[2][3] This wavelength means a frequency range of roughly 430–750 terahertz (THz).

and

In physics, the term light sometimes refers to electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength, whether visible or not.[5][6] In this sense, gamma rays, X-rays, microwaves and radio waves are also light. Like all types of EM radiation, visible light propagates as waves. However, the energy imparted by the waves is absorbed at single locations the way particles are absorbed. The absorbed energy of the EM waves is called a photon, and represents the quanta of light. When a wave of light is transformed and absorbed as a photon, the energy of the wave instantly collapses to a single location, and this location is where the photon "arrives." This is what is called the wave function collapse. This dual wave-like and particle-like nature of light is known as the wave–particle duality. The study of light, known as optics, is an important research area in modern physics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Units_and_measures

and

For sound waves in air, the speed of sound is 343 m/s (at room temperature and atmospheric pressure). The wavelengths of sound frequencies audible to the human ear (20 Hz–20 kHz) are thus between approximately 17 m and 17 mm, respectively. Note that the wavelengths in audible sound are much longer than those in visible light.

As a professional bassplayer for some 10 years I dealt with soundwaves and harmonics a great deal of the time. I do have a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties.

For those who are keeping count, is everyone satisfied?

I see you as being obsessed with detail and unable to find "common denominators" in seemingly unconnected natural phenomena. This was David Bohm's complaint. Science studies bits and pieces without considering their connection to the "Wholeness" which displays an inherent motion which he and deBroglie named the universal "Pilot Wave".

 

[NotEinstein]

For those keeping count? Am I that important? A rare object to be studied and analyzed?

I'll save you the time. I took a MENSA test once and scored 70%. At another time I took an IQ test and scored 158. Of course I was younger and since then I may have experienced some neural loss, but I believe I am still capable of observation and processing of subtle and complicated ideas.

OK, enough biography.

It's not about IQ points; it's about how you use them.

In the previous posts, I have already shown the ranges of all the colors in the visible light spectrum in "nm", but I'll quote the narrative; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Units_and_measures

and As a professional bassplayer for some 10 years I dealt with soundwaves and harmonics a great deal of the time. I do have a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties.

Wait, "a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties"? So you admit you don't have a clue about the details and intricacies involved with waves?

For those who are keeping count, is everyone satisfied?

I see you as being obsessed with detail

Yes, because that's where the devil is. You do know science has evolved so far, that the details have become extremely important?

and unable to find "common denominators" in seemingly unconnected natural phenomena.

Except I don't. The thing is: seemingly unconnected natural phenomena that may be connected often aren't when you check the details.

This was David Bohm's complaint. Science studies bits and pieces without considering their connection to the "Wholeness" which displays an inherent motion which he and deBroglie named the universal "Pilot Wave".

(Irrelevant.)

And once again you've missed the point of frequencies and ranges of frequencies being different.

 

[Andrew256]

Unfortunately I can't spare the time to read the whole topic, but I think that the concept of "nothing" itself is a paradox. If "nothing" can exist, then it must be something.

In my point of view, true "nothing" can't exist.

 

[exchemist]

For those keeping count? Am I that important? A rare object to be studied and analyzed?

I'll save you the time. I took a MENSA test once and scored 70%. At another time I took an IQ test and scored 158. Of course I was younger and since then I may have experienced some neural loss, but I believe I am still capable of observation and processing of subtle and complicated ideas.

OK, enough biography.

In the previous posts, I have already shown the ranges of all the colors in the visible light spectrum in "nm", but I'll quote the narrative; and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light#Units_and_measures

and As a professional bassplayer for some 10 years I dealt with soundwaves and harmonics a great deal of the time. I do have a rudimentary theoretical and practical experience with "waves" and their properties.

[sermonising snipped]

Ah good, something you are familiar with. This may help. If you know something about musical sound you will be aware that you cannot generate a pitch of G by playing 2 Cs an octave apart. Or E by playing C and G together. Or indeed to synthesise, from a combination of two different pitches, any intermediate pitch.

This analogy may help you understand (given your historical high IQ etc) that you cannot physically create yellow light out of a "mixture" of red and green, or violet out of a "mixture" of red and blue, and so forth.

 

[Write4U]

Yes, because that's where the devil is. You do know science has evolved so far, that the details have become extremely important?

Yes, and when the details reveal greater and greater connectivity , it should lead to refined and simpler equations.

Except I don't. The thing is: seemingly unconnected natural phenomena that may be connected often aren't when you check the details.

But that is not the case. We may now even have some predictive powers to prove the existence of heretofore never seen particles (bosons), which IMO, simplifies at least one aspect of the higher "unseen" order and its subsequent sub-orders.

This analogy may help you understand (given your historical high IQ etc) that you cannot physically create yellow light out of a "mixture" of red and green, or violet out of a "mixture" of red and blue, and so forth.

Ah, the difference between "additive" and "subtractive" colors? Projection and Absorption.

Additive color
Additive color is a method to create color by mixing a number of different light colors, with shades of red, green, and blue being the most common primary colors used in additive color system.
More Information on Wikipedia

Subtractive color
A subtractive color model explains the mixing of a limited set of dyes, inks, paint pigments or natural colorants to create a wider range of colors, each the result of partially or completely subtracting (that is, absorbing) some wavelengths of light and not others.
More Information on Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and when the details reveal greater and greater connectivity , it should lead to refined and simpler equations.
But that is not the case. We may now even have some predictive powers to prove the existence of heretofore never seen particles (bosons), which IMO, simplifies at least one aspect of the higher "unseen" order and its subsequent sub-orders.

Ah, the difference between "additive" and "subtractive" colors? Projection and Absorption.

Additive color
Additive color is a method to create color by mixing a number of different light colors, with shades of red, green, and blue being the most common primary colors used in additive color system.
More Information on Wikipedia

Subtractive color
A subtractive color model explains the mixing of a limited set of dyes, inks, paint pigments or natural colorants to create a wider range of colors, each the result of partially or completely subtracting (that is, absorbing) some wavelengths of light and not others.
More Information on Wikipedia

Yes and neither of these has anything to do with the physics of EM radiation.

Do you understand that now, from the analogy with sound waves that I pointed out?

 

[NotEinstein]

Yes, and when the details reveal greater and greater connectivity , it should lead to refined and simpler equations.

So you agree with me that some level of obsession over details is important? Good.

But that is not the case.

Why?

We may now even have some predictive powers to prove the existence of heretofore never seen particles (bosons), which IMO, simplifies at least one aspect of the higher "unseen" order and its subsequent sub-orders.

Irrelevant.

For those keeping count, Write4U has once again chosen to ignore responding to the matter of frequencies and ranges of frequencies being different.

 

[Write4U]

So you agree with me that some level of obsession over details is important? Good.

I have never said otherwise, my point was that finding common denominators in various phenomena allows us to simplify fundamental equations occurring naturally.
Example: the Fibonacci sequence occurring in leafed plants, from which we can deduce that this sequence offers a survival advantage. The plant does not need to "know" the mathematics, it just is an evolutionary refinement of capturing maximum amount of light.

 

[Write4U]

Why?

Because the more we know the more common denominators we discover. This makes the mathematics simpler, we need only refer to the previously developed mathematics and incorporate them into the "proof" of a particular hypothesis.
Thus the expression

The metaphor of dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantum humeris insidentes) expresses the meaning of "discovering truth by building on previous discoveries".[1] This concept has been traced to the 12th century, attributed to Bernard of Chartres. Its most familiar expression in English is by Isaac Newton in 1675: "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

 

[NotEinstein]

I have never said otherwise, my point was that finding common denominators in various phenomena allows us to simplify fundamental equations occurring naturally.

Sure, but the only way to know whether the common denominators are actually connected, is to be "obsessed with detail".[/QUOTE]

Example: the Fibonacci sequence occurring in leafed plants, from which we can deduce that this sequence offers a survival advantage. The plant does not need to "know" the mathematics, it just is an evolutionary refinement of capturing maximum amount of light.

But how would you know that it's for the same reason for all leafed plants, unless you check the details?

Because the more we know the more common denominators we discover. This makes the mathematics simpler, we need only refer to the previously developed mathematics and incorporate them into the "proof" of a particular hypothesis.
Thus the expression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

Are you claiming everything is connected to everything?

 

[Write4U]

Sure, but the only way to know whether the common denominators are actually connected, is to be "obsessed with detail".

I agree.

But how would you know that it's for the same reason for all leafed plants, unless you check the details?

They have. the sequence is physically observable not only on earth, but throughout the universe.

Are you claiming everything is connected to everything?

In an hierarchical self ordering system all the parts follow the same paths these orders allow. The Fibonacci Sequence is not just found on Earth. It is observably spread throughout the universe! That's no accident, it is a self-orgazing mathematical pattern which is efficient in some particular mathematical way.

Fibonacci numbers and Phi are related to spiral growth in nature.
If you sum the squares of any series of Fibonacci numbers, they will equal the last Fibonacci number used in the series times the next Fibonacci number. This property results in the Fibonacci spiral, based on the following progression and properties of the Fibonacci series:

https://www.goldennumber.net/spirals/

These and all fundamentally significant mathematical patterns ("common denominators" ) have naturally occurred and have been expressed in the universe since the dawn of time.

It's an "Orderly" (efficient) means of exchange of information (values and functions) without needing to be anything more.
IMO, Mathematical functions are woven into the fabric of spacetime itself. It is a Potential (as in latent ability) of the Universe.

 

[NotEinstein]

I agree.

Well, in that case, thanks for the compliment!

They have.

Thank you for proving my point.

the sequence is physically observable not only on earth, but throughout the universe. In an hierarchical self ordering system all the parts follow the same paths these orders allow. The Fibonacci Sequence is not just found on Earth. It is observably spread throughout the universe! That's no accident, it is a self-orgazing mathematical pattern which is efficient in some particular mathematical way.
https://www.goldennumber.net/spirals/

These and all fundamentally significant mathematical patterns ("common denominators" ) have naturally occurred and have been expressed in the universe since the dawn of time.

It's an "Orderly" (efficient) means of exchange of information (values and functions) without needing to be anything more.
IMO, Mathematical functions are woven into the fabric of spacetime itself. It is a Potential (as in latent ability) of the Universe.

Are you claiming the entire universe is a hierarchical self ordering system?

 

[Write4U]

Are you claiming the entire universe is a hierarchical self ordering system?

Yep. It is a mathematically self-ordering system, IMO.

p.s. that includes the mathematical function of entropy.

 

[NotEinstein]

Yep. It is a mathematically self-ordering system, IMO.

p.s. that includes the mathematical function of entropy.

Ah, you're talking about the most trivial form of connectedness. Sure, in that sense, everything is connected. But that wasn't what we were talking about: we were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena.

 

[Write4U]

Ah, you're talking about the most trivial form of connectedness. Sure, in that sense, everything is connected. But that wasn't what we were talking about: we were talking about common denominators in natural phenomena.

Does it not follow that the ability to self organize demands some fundamental common denominators which allow the self organizing formation of recurring specific patterns in the first place?
If not, why would mathematics be of any use at all?

Hazen touched on that in his lecture recounting his walk through the Redwood forest and discussion of "organization" with Matt Scott.

Start @ 43:40

and this prior lecture I just found. Start @ 5:35

 

[Write4U]

For what purpose would Trilobites already have eyes, unless they offered a survival advantage in their environment?