Closing the Frequency Spectrum Loop

RainmanTime

RainmanTime

Super Moderator
I thought it would be good to start a home thread for continued discussions of the concept of frequency response... especially given that frequency and time are reciprocal "brothers" when it comes to physics. This started over in a thread on the TT Claims board, and it was a bit off topic in that thread. So how about we continue the discussion here?

I've got one thought to start us off, and it is summarized in the title I chose for this thread. Our current model of the physics of the universe envisions the range of values of physical frequencies as a linear spectrum (or axis).

emr_ho2.gif


The linear progression on the "X" axis is frequency in Hz. We see it as a line starting at 0 Hz (i.e. DC) and progressing towards infinity beyond X-rays and Gamma-rays. It is my belief that an advancement in physics is coming where we will learn how to "close the loop" of the frequency spectrum. In other words, we will no longer see frequency as a linear, open-loop phenomenon (as we do now), but we will figure out a way to "wrap around" from high freq back to low freq through DC (0 Hz).

In a way this could be tieing the "Omega" (the highest, last frequencies) back to the "Alpha" (the lowest, first frequencies). And if you were to ask me for a physical analogy that best describes the moment of Creation of our universe... it would be when our Creator first decided to depart from being a DC being, and start to cause something (all things!) to oscillate... become AC.

When we learn to close the loop of the frequency spectrum, we will then understand what it means, in a physical sense, to travel through time.

Agrees? Disagrees? Discussions? Feel free to chime in...
RMT
 
i recently read an article about the heat spectrum being a loop, that hot things can get so hot they become cold. is it anything like that? and are they interconnected in some way? maybe time is simply a spectrum too. seems like everything is in a way.
 
Hi wa1ex,

Can you elaborate on "our creator" ?
Click to expand...

I could, but would rather not. If you "dig down very deep" in this forum you will find a couple threads on "God?" where myself and a friend (OvrLrdLegion) tried to express the foundation for a Creator which is inherent in systems that locally decrease entropy. But let me just admit in this thread that, clearly, this is a belief of mine. I cannot offer concrete "proof" that there was some being that decided to start the universal oscillations that resulted in creation and the frequency spectrum.

Is that enough of a "dodge" for you? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
RMT
 
Hi TimeLord:

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

especially given that frequency and time are reciprocal "brothers" when it comes to physics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please give examples.
Click to expand...

Well, the best example I can give is how we can describe and envision the response of any physical control system in both the Time domain and the Frequency domain. The following charts come from this website:

http://www.engin.umich.edu/group/ctm/examples/cruise/ccFR.html

Let's say we wish to control the speed of a car (the classic cruise control problem). When we command the car to change its state from not moving (i.e. velocity of 0) to some specific velocity (in this case, 10 meters/sec), we can clearly see the time response of how the car accelerates to its new speed as follows:

cc1W.GIF


Oddly enough /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif we call this the Time Domain response of the physical system. However, we can also see what the response of the car looks like (and learn new, and important facts about the physics of the car) by viewing the Frequency Domain response of the same system to varying, oscillatory commands:

ccFR9W.GIF


Now we see that the "X" axis is no longer time, but rather frequency (as in the frequency of an oscillatory component of the entire spectrum of the system's response). Note that we need TWO plots to analyze in the frequency domain. One is the amplitude (or GAIN) plot, and the other is the time-lag (or PHASE) plot.

The page I cited above goes on to show how changing the design of the controller not only changes the time-domain response of the system, but also changes the frequency domain "signature" of the response. Frequency response allows us to see where a systems response is "more powerful" (higher gain response) as well as where it is "more weak". Another example is a graphic equalizer for your stereo system. The display of a graphic equalizer is showing the GAIN response over frequency. As such it shows you at what frequencies the power is the highest. A similar plot that we use to analyze at what frequencies a system is most powerful is called a "Power Spectral Density" plot.

Did this help?
RMT
 
It is best to study this, and understand its mathematical model, to understand the genius of Einstein:

SETens.gif


A matrix with sub-matrix mathematical model. It explains this quite well.

RMT
 
Would we be far more advanced in science, would we have already undersood what it is to travel throught time?
Click to expand...

I imagine that we'd either be very sleepy all the time or have lead lined eyelids.

Imagine what it would be like just to try to sleep in a world where everything appeared to be a perfect glowing black body? If you could detect the EM spectrum through the cosmic ray zone closing your eyes wouldn't block the light. The world would be eternally brightly lit by high energy flashbulbs as the rays hit your eyes through your eyelids - lead lined or not - 24/7. Going in the other direction you'd constantly see IR and on down to the 2 kelvin cosmic background radiation - everything would be blanketed in a solid glow. Your brain would never have an instant where it could shut off the external stimuli and rest.

In reality there's a practical limit to what you can "see". As you move beyond the visible spectrum and deep into the UV spectrum you run up against the wave/particle duality as you enter the quantum world. X-rays have more characteristics of particles than waves. Gamma radiation is definitely particulate. Moving the other direction there's simply not enough energy in low energy IR and beyond to initiate significant neuro-chemical reactions (reactions per unit of time).
 
in regards to eyes evolving...they are. I for instance can see wavelengths slightly into the ultra violet range. It actually looks like smog color (light yellow-brown)to me. First time I took notice that I was seeing something that others do not see was when looking at a vivid rainbow. there were a few more bands of light past the violet band and I was the only one seeing them in my group. We were Berkeley grad students at the time, studying daylighting, so this was not a diagnosis among common morons. Back in the lab I did some experiments and found that I could "see" the "invisible" UV spectrum...well at least part of it. As the frequencies get higher, the color fades like when you take a hearing test and approach the high frequency limit of your ears.

So, yes, our eyes ARE evolving.
 
We all, individualy, are at different levels of awareness as far as what we can perceive. I don't believe it is just with the eyes, but also has alot to do with what the brain is capable of translating as far as the frequencies of energy that are passing through the eyes.

It depends on not only possible physical limitations of what the brain inherently has as far as "translating" what it is "seeing", but also hinges on how much the consciousness can handle.

I don't believe there are many people that would be able to handle comprehending much more than what is currently "seen". To multiply that by expanding our vision to include additional frequencies may put most people into an overload mode.

As an example...I had a friend that was able to hear sounds from much further distances than what is considered "normal". She had to modify her home and office to block out the sounds, or it would drive her crazy.
 
Back
Top