Although this post is rather long, it is in fact only a brief overview of my work. Therefore please feel free to ask any questions. I request that first people should try to understand what is proposed so that they get to grips with it. Then look at the predictions and successes. That should ensure some interest in then seeing how it relates to existing physics and cosmology knowledge. I am very happy to receive criticism, but it should not be on the basis that it disagrees with existing theory, rather on the basis of observational evidence. It should be seen that Harmonics Theory is actually a separate domain to much existing physics, mainly predicting new things.

Way back in the 1970s I used to do computer work involving mathematical modeling of economic systems. That might seem a funny place to start to develop ideas relating to fundamental physics, and as you can imagine it was a long and winding road. I will describe a bit of it here and refer you to other places for more reading.

My first economic models were not looking for cycles, but some cycles jumped out of the data and bit me. So I began to look at them and found that they did work for making economic forecasts. It took a while before I noticed that the first four cycles that I had used were related in frequency in exactly the same was as the four notes in a major chord. I didn't mention this for some time for fear of being thought nuts. Even worse, I found the whole musical scale in commodity prices. Eventually I began to look at non-linear systems and discovered that non-linear systems can develop harmonics and that if harmonics of harmonics are also developed then exactly the musical scale is developed.

Step by step the things I studied grew wider and the pattern persisted - economics, biology, weather, climate, geology, astronomy ... the musical pattern characterized by mostly ratios of 2 and 3 between common cycles persisted. My theoretical explanation gradually developed until I took a bold leap which I will describe below. It is important for me to mention that I spent something like 14 years studying cycles, most of these entirely funded by myself so that I could follow wherever the story lead me. So I am not some guy that has a theory that they dreamed up on the way home last night.

Before going into my own work, it is important to set the scene. In the past I did not do this and many people did not get what I had done. The trouble is that knowledge of cycles is fractured over many different scientific disciplines and some not so quite scientific ones. I am a scientist who spent years developing reliable system software in computers. It is a job that tests to the limits your ability to deal with every logical possibility.

Before I made many of my discoveries, except the theoretical part, almost all the rest had been independently discovered by a number of people. Therefore I refer to their research. Foremost among these was Edward R. Dewey who along with a bunch of senior scientists from various disciplines (many in biology or related fields) and others started an organization called the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in about 1941. He summarized the findings on cycles in the 1960s in a paper called "The Case for Cycles" http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.o...for_cycles.pdf (0.9 MB PDF file). I can vouch for most of the conclusions in this document because I independently came to them without knowledge of Dewey or the FSC or his data or methods.

The most important findings in that paper are that there are a set of common cycles on Earth that are related by simple ratios of 2 and 3 from a base of 17.75 years. By comparison, my common cycles were based on 35.6 years before I heard of Dewey's work, almost exactly 2x Dewey's figure. The cycles that I had found were all in Dewey's list of common cycles and mostly in his simple table, with discrepancies of only about 0.2%.

The eventual axiom that I adopted to explain the cycles, incorporating also the reason for it, I state below. It can be stated without reference to the Universe, such as using "a closed system" but I prefer to be honest about what I think that system is and this is after all an appropriate forum for the big system. :-) The axiom:

The Universe consists of a standing wave that develops harmonics
which are also standing waves and each of these does the same.

Although I call this an axiom, and want you to take it as such and see where it leads, I do present reasons for this. All fundamental physics equations must be non-linear, and it is a property of a non-linear standing wave in a closed system to develop harmonics. Note that the axiom is recursive, it goes on indefinitely.

I will summarize the results and then proceed to the evidence.

Firstly, some harmonics such as the 11th and 13th are only produced in one way while others like the 12th are produced in 8 ways or even more for higher numbers. These harmonics that are produced in multiple ways will receive more energy in them according to the axiom. The pattern of energy predicted by this "Harmonics Theory" does produce musical patterns including the major chord and the whole musical scale. But it is much more complex than that. Although the ratio of 2 dominates between the stronger cycle frequencies, the ratio 3 is also common. That fits Dewey's table. However the predicted pattern also connects Dewey and other cycles that were not recognized as part of the pattern. Ratios of 5, 7 and other primes are predicted to happen far less often between the strongest energy waves. This fact means that the observed pattern of all cycles reported from many disciplines can be compared to the predicted one to determine the fundamental oscillation period of the Universe with some accuracy.

The full description of the maths and some predictions and explanations is available at http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html and additional material on the physics background is dealt with in two parts (more to come) in my blog on "How to Make a Universe":
Step 1 http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/24/p158
Step 2 http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/27/p159

As we follow it to higher frequencies, it produces huge undulations which relate to the factorizations of the strong harmonic numbers. These huge undulations happen at typical intervals of 10^4.5 in ratio with some slight variations. Interestingly, if we start from the Hubble scale and repeatedly apply this sort of ratio then we get good estimates of the typical distances between the galaxies, the stars, the planets, moons .... atoms, nucleons and perhaps quarks. There is no other physical theory that even hints at this structure of the Universe on such wide scale ratios and none that gets any of these ratios without measured constants being used as a starting point. So this one big success based simply on non-linear wave production must make the theory interesting to scientists.

That is not the only success, there have been about a dozen successful explanations of previously inexplicable data in a way that ties them in together and also a number of predictions that have been later verified. Some of these are:

1. Explains Dewey's table of cycle periods related by ratios 2 and 3.

2. Explain long geological cycles with ratios of 2 (reported in "Megacycles" a book which is the proceedings of a geological conference, edited by G Williams)

3. Explain a set of solar cycles reported in recent literature and noted to be harmonically related, mostly by ratios of 2 and 3. These include cycles of 155, 78, 52 and 26 days and some other longer cycles. These cycles also link flawlessly into the cycles reported by Dewey and others.

4. Explain the 72 km/s redshift periodicity found by W Tifft, H Arp and others. Also predicted a number of further periodicities related by ratios of 2 and 3 which have also been reported by W Tifft. The agreement is at the level of p<10^10.

5. Predicted a new subatomic particle of mass 68 times an electron (34.76 Mev) in 1994, before such a discovery was reported in 1995 by scientists at KARMEN and reported as 33.9 Mev. No other theory predicted this particle.

6. Predicted that stellar spacings, like galactic ones, would show periodicities. These are confirmed by my own analysis, although much better data is now available on distances to nearby stars. It is interesting to note that the distance periodicities in light years match the economic cycle period in years. This confirms that the wave structure that links stars is based on speed of light interactions and so therefore is probably electromagnetic or gravitational or some new aspect linked to these.

7. Showed that Super-galactic wave periodicities reported by astronomers, using the latest Hubble constant, have the right wavelength to be associated with long geological cycles. This connection allows the Hubble constant to be calculated with high accuracy as 71.1 km/s/Mpc, although this could easily be improved by a digit or two.

8. Showed that waves in the solar system link together oscillation periods found in the Sun and the regular spacings of the planets. There are many additional connections here, many of which have been established by Kotov connected with 160 minute oscillations.

I think that is enough to start with, but there is more. I have additional tests which will predict effects that are entirely unexpected by existing physics, such as stellar accelerations relating to the stellar waves mentioned before that will cause small accelerations in stars in the solar vicinity that are detectable in the existing data used for discovering planets.

Perhaps I will close with mentioning that I consider the Harmonics Theory perfectly compatible with relativity and other physics except for the Big Bang theory. Harmonics theory is consistent with a vastly older Universe, and also gives reasons for the cosmological red shift that explains gravity as a side effect. In this it agrees with the suggestion of Arp and Narlikar for variable mass of particles which generally increase over time at the Hubble rate.

You've read this? Some of it is dated, but it's still pretty good. Since titles cannot be copyrighted, it's the devil to find this with a search engine. Many books are entitled 'Music of the Spheres', or some variation.

Guy Murchie "The Music of The Spheres, The Material Universe - From Atom to Quasar, Simply Explained; Volume 1 - The Macrocosm: Planets, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmology" [Dover Publications Inc., 180 Varick Street, New York, USA 1961] ISBN 0-486-21809-0 / "Volume 2 - The Microcosm" [Dover] ISBN 0-486-21810-4

Also, references on point 5 above?

Hi Ray welcome back to BAUT (I guess you were introduced to it a couple years ago when our member ExpErdMann referenced your analysis of the GPS stations), we've met on UsenetI know this is not new to you (I see you've created wiki pages on just intonation and similar subjects), but I find this point fascinating.

The notes of a major chord are in a ratio of 4:5:6:8 (I assume those are the four that you meant) but that just means that they are integer harmonics of a note two octaves lower. In other words, the 1, in 1:2:3:4:5:6. (and, of course, the 1:2 is the same as the 4:8, and the 2:3 the same as 4:6, sorta explaining why the 7 is left off )

There are two dfferent ways that such harmonics can arise. The fundamental unit can be multiplied, or it can be divided. For example, if our day is the fundamental unit, we find that another unit (the week) works best if it is an integer multiple (7, as opposed to 7.3) of our fundamental unit. Another unit (the hour) works best if it is an integer fractional part (1/24) of a day. Both the week and hour are artificial, but we find them in society over and over. The only thing that needs explaining is the day--which explanation naturally relates our relationship to space.

I think the harmonics arise often enough, naturally, but the key is the explanation of some fundamental unit, why it occurs, why it exists to force the others.

Wow, I didn't know there was a 9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance. Of course, you're going to have to show me some evidence that this and similar periodicities, especially in population dynamics and economics, have any relationship or application to "good estimates of the typical distances between the galaxies, the stars..."

Cyclic periodicities really just touch on the surface of complex systems theory, which you might want to look into.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Hi hhEb09'1, I am surprised that anyone remembers me here. Thanks. Yes, the GPS stuff was what let me discover the forum.

You are right that the 4:5:6:8 frequency ratios are the major chord, and that was what I originally found. The periods 4.45, 5.9, 7.15 and ~9 years were all 35.6 years divided by 4, 5, 6, and 8 (in the opposite order). As regards the two ways of harmonics arising, I think that the major scale arises most naturally as multiples of a frequency and the minor scale as fractions of a frequency. The Harmonics theory relies entirely on multiples of frequency, though I have looked at the other way and been asked about it before. I cannot see evidence of either a method of it happening in non-linear systems, nor evidence of its results, so feel happy with the multiples.

The harmonics theory naturally works from the top down in the universe, easily explaining the large scale structures. The big bang theory supposedly works from the bottom up, but does not really explain any of the structures and struggled with the mere existence of large structures and so needed additional axioms to get close to working.

Originally I started following the economic cycles looking for causes and an origin. This took me to ever longer cycles (years, hundred then thousands and more years) until I got nature's hint and said "what if the fundamental cycle is assumed to be the universal oscillation?" and that really opened up a whole heap of stuff that worked.

Regards
Ray

Hi Ray, nice to see you here. About five years ago I came across one of your papers "Harmonics, Pythagoras, Music and the Universe", and was intrigued enough to work out the harmonic ratios for quantum shells of a hydrogen atom. To my surprise, it was musical! No wonder we as human beings have an appreciation for harmonics, both visually and audio, if the universe is harmonic by design all the way down to our brain cells, at the quantum level. So no surprise if it is also harmonic the other way, all the way up to planetary and cosmic scales. The universe is musical!

FYI, a link to my calculations, see (scroll down) Aug. 25, 2002: http://www.humancafe.com/discus/messages/1/60.html (those pages are now closed, archived, read only).

If you came here to field some of your ideas on harmonics, you came to a good place. There are some very smart people inhabiting this ATM. But be prepared to defend your ideas vigorously. (I should know, having gone through a good work over presenting my idea of a 'variable G'... uh, to my benefit. -I'm only a stockbroker with rudimentary math, not a physicist!) If there are flaws in your logic, they'll be sure to point it out, I'm sure. Think of it as to your benefit.

In any case, good luck, and have fun. This is a good crowd, and smart, to leave one humbled. But you've got 30 days...

All the best, Ivan

__________________
Credibility is simply incredible... sometimes even to me.
disclaimer

No I haven't seen that one thanks.

http://www.google.co.nz/search?q=33.9+Mev+KARMEN gives a few hundred references. I note that unlike a few years ago, these now have speculations about neutrino masses. I first saw a brief of the report in New Scientist in Feb 1995, and the actual report was published later that year in Phys???
It is generally sometimes referred to as a particle and sometimes an anomaly.

The data that I used was rather old, and it would be much wiser to redo the analysis with newer data. However what I found was that the nearby stars nearly all lay on a grid with a 4.43 light year rhombic layout in a single plane. The rhombus is not far from square, just enough to make the opposite diagonals be close to 4/3 and 3/2 of the length of a side. These values mean that it fits many harmonics well. Note that the 4.43 light year grid compares to Dewey's 4.44 year and my 4.45 year (mainly economic) cycles periods.

I have searched my records for my old ASCII diagram of this (from 1994) without success yet. However I will keep looking.

Hi nutant gene 71 / Ivan

Thanks for the welcome.

Yes, the orbitals are reasonably musical. The masses of the more common particles are also reasonably well linked by ratios. Masses are proportional to (Compton) frequencies because of the relationships E=mc^2 and E=hf. It is from these considerations that I found that the value 34.76 Mev is a divisor into many particle masses (muon=3x, pion=4x, neutron/proton=27x etc) and suggested there must be such a particle.

Yes, already I can see that people are looking intelligently at it without the usual knee-jerk rejection reactions. I certainly welcome being questioned and learning where I need to tidy up my act.

Regards
Ray

I now found my old data. Dam this forum doesn't seem to allow fixed font. Have loaded a screen shot.

Now that I have worked out how to post images here I will add a few images that might be useful as references in the forum.

The first 100 harmonics showing also the musical scale


The first million harmonics (harmonic numbers shown above)


The harmonics through to ~10^53 (incomplete beyond ~10^51)


The profile of the relative strength of harmonics which predicts structure at approximately 10^4.5 ratios of distance


The identification of the fundamental Universal oscillation period that best fits commonly known cycles


Common cycles (and a few other figures) between 600 million years and about a week

This last diagram does not show all the predicted strongest harmonics due to complex overlapping of ratios. The full data is available as a CVS (comma separated values) file suitable for spreadsheet use at http://ray.tomes.biz/comb7t9.zip and can be converted to cycle periods by incorporating the fundamental period shown above.

Ah, the KARMEN results were negative on the particle search, although they were looking at 33.9 Mev. Only one group reports a positive result up to about year 2000, and that is for only one instance out of many. They predict approx the same particle, but there is not enough evidence that the particle actually exists.

I actually read your entire post. However, the only thing I can find that relates to what I know is mentioned above.

Locusts?

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

All systems that oscillate develop harmonics. So if you look around, you will see lots of oscillatory systems in nature that have harmonic relationships.

I don't see that this observation explains any unsolved mysteries.

__________________
PW -- Plant Whisperer

Hi John

AFAIK, the sequence of events went something like this.
* I made my prediction in 1994 on my website, at a FSC conference and in usenet (a 1994 reply to the original post in usenet can still be found via google).
* In 1995, KARMEN reported a persistent blip in their neutrino experiment that indicated that a WIMP of mass 33.9 Mev was being produced. They did a lot of things to try and eliminate it but it was consistent.
* For a long time this was without replication effort.
* More recently with the evidence of neutrino mass it seems to have got a second life. That seems to be most of the present articles.

I understand that particle physicists want some additional replications to be sure. However being a WIMP it is not so easy to get results I assume.

regards
Ray

The index at http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/indexname.html does not list locusts. From what I have read they like a prime number of years like 11, 13, or 17 in order to avoid predators. Our local locusts appear every year, so I don't know about that.

I would not expect 11, 13 or 17 years to fit the pattern if the effect is driven form the year and prime numbers.

Certainly harmonics are common and well understood. What is different about the harmonics theory is the consideration given to harmonics of harmonics (and so on). I have not seen this addressed elsewhere. In things like guitars you naturally get harmonics, but you do not get harmonics of harmonics. That is because the harmonics do not themselves act as seeds for more waves. AFAIK the condition for this to happen is to have standing waves in a non-linear medium in at least 2 dimensions. Then all standing waves, including the harmonics, have centres where there is greater energy concentration and that is the necessary condition for developing further harmonics because the non-linearity is then greater there.

Could this be why music affects the psyche? I mean music compels emotions? And could it be a frequency code of some kind at an atomic level? Im totally lost when it comes to most physics but I have often theorized that some form of instruction cycle is being produced by light or sound?