MUSIC VS NOISE: LIGHT AND SOUND CORRELATIONS As both sonic pitch and visual color are wave – dependent functions, there is basis for a correlative principle. As the frequency ranges of sound waves and light waves have been separately described in terms of a spectrum, it is logical to seek commonality therein. Both spectrums naturally tend to be intrinsically comprised of twelve discrete increments. The reference points within each spectrum are expressed as quantitative values for the specific purpose of calibrating said values in quantitative ratios, and identifying the principle(s) governing them in terms of quantity. This has been separately accomplished for each spectrum and satisfactorily demonstrated as consistently applicable in the real world. The results are so widely accepted so as to possess universal scientific titles, namely: 1. For LIGHT, the Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum. 2. For SOUND, the Audible Frequency Spectrum. Here’s one of hundreds of excerpts from online sources claiming scientific qualification for analysis and subsequent commentary: “Light is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum, higher in frequency than radio waves, but below X-rays. Wavelengths we can see are between approximately 380nm and 780nm. Curiously, the spectrum of visible light, between ultraviolet and infrared, is almost exactly an octave, with the visible edge of ultraviolet having double the frequency (and half the wavelength) of the visible edge of infrared. I took a C program I had written to compute the frequencies of all the notes on a piano, and modified it to output the frequency and wavelength of the harmonic in light that corresponds to each musical pitch (for any octave). Corresponding light-spectrum harmonics were computed from equal temperament musical pitches, using a reference of A440 and a half-step frequency ratio of 21/12. Given the speed of light, C = 299792458 meters/second, and λ=C/F, wavelengths were computed for each frequency. The 780.75nm "F" falls outside of the 380-780nm range but I added it for interest. Note that exactly 12 pitches fit within the range. The light spectrum "C" is 41 octaves above middle-C. F -- 349.228231 Hz ~ 383.980501 THz ~ 780.749171 nm F# -- 369.994423 Hz ~ 406.813170 THz ~ 736.929087 nm G -- 391.995436 Hz ~ 431.003540 THz ~ 695.568436 nm G# -- 415.304698 Hz ~ 456.632344 THz ~ 656.529179 nm A -- 440.000000 Hz ~ 483.785116 THz ~ 619.681028 nm Bflat -- 466.163762 Hz ~ 512.552476 THz ~ 584.901004 nm B -- 493.883301 Hz ~ 543.030432 THz ~ 552.073033 nm C -- 523.251131 Hz ~ 575.320702 THz ~ 521.087555 nm C# -- 554.365262 Hz ~ 609.531052 THz ~ 491.841158 nm D -- 587.329536 Hz ~ 645.775654 THz ~ 464.236235 nm Eflat -- 622.253967 Hz ~ 684.175473 THz ~ 438.180657 nm E -- 659.255114 Hz ~ 724.858663 THz ~ 413.587466 nm F -- 698.456463 Hz ~ 767.961002 THz ~ 390.374586 nm” These results are consistent with all systems based on the specified principles, regardless of the tuning of said scales, provided the scales were analogous to the Western seven tone scale occurring within one octave, where an octave is the harmonic interval obtained by doubling the frequency of the fundamental tone, and scales understood as derived from a middle C pitched within standard musical range of 250 – 265 Hz. This process of derivation consistently results in a correlation of middle C with GREEN LIGHT, and depending on the specific scale and tuning pitch used, middle C logically falls DEAD CENTER GREEN. One example commonly cited is the use of Pythagorean derived tuning in concert with C256Hz, (A432Hz), often referred to as the Natural Scale or the Universal Scale, since not only do the pitches manifest as whole numbers, their correspondence to light frequency colors falls precisely centered in all twelve discrete increments. So, that settles it, right? What more do we need? Shouldn’t it be obvious that objections to this derivation are rooted in bias and personal emotion rather than objective analysis? Isn’t this just a matter of opinion anyway? I’ll start by saying right off that the above derivation is sufficient for generating an analogous correlation. However the method is nowhere near demonstrating an actual correlation of aspect, physical or theoretical, that may be relied upon to produce any empirically verifiable effect suggesting a correlation actually exists at all, in any form whatsoever. Moreover I don’t have to construct physical experiments to demonstrate the invalidity of this method in any context other than the imaginary mental exercise just described. The reasons are as follows: 1. The waves are dissimilar in nature. The biggest issue in this regard is that electromagnetic waves require no propagating medium and may therefore travel through the vacuum of space, whereas sound waves are specifically dependent on a propagating medium. The so called ‘principle’ of correlation ignores entirely the fact that each wave must be expressible in terms of the other to establish non-bias toward either wave’s properties. When considered in the electromagnetic wave’s contextual reference, a sound wave’s properties cannot be expressed in any quantitative terms other than zero because the wave never exists to begin with. This alone terminates the need for further investigation into the matter. For purposes of examining theoretically valid aspects of the analogy, I continue. The obvious candidate warranting our attention is the issue of color. And of course I understand the impulse to admit the presence of some sort of correspondence just because of the fact that C falls within the green spectral range every time. Surely this indicates some sort of connection? The answer is yes, it verifies a connection between pitch and color, but unfortunately not in mutually inclusive terms. And in fashion similar to the previous, the only terms describing physical properties of color that may be uniformly applied to both waves are terms of zero. What? Isnt the most obvious fact we can actually observe is that middle C does in fact manifest as GREEN in every instance across every octave? No. I’m sorry. No. Again, there are multiple scientific reasons, among the most problematic the fact that color is not a physical property of light to begin with. There is no such thing as red light or green light or light possessed of color. Color is by definition a sensory process, and solely a sensory process. Color is not measurable or even detectable by any means other than conscious analysis of effect. But isn’t some light green because it has a certain wavelength? No. But isn’t the whole basis of this investigation and theorizing and modeling an attempt to align the colors of light and sound? Didn’t we just prove that by basing things on this very observable in reality green light, and a very hearable in reality C pitched note, we can logically demonstrate a correlation of some kind even if we haven’t solidly pinned it down? Sadly, yes. That is precisely what has been demonstrated – that matters of study involving color and pitch will always require a conscious human capable of full spectrum color vision present so as to identify the color perceived. But isn’t that totally unnecessary because don’t we already know that light with wavelengths of 512 whatever are green? Hasn’t that been established? No, it has never been established. What has been measured and verified and thereby established is that light of certain wavelengths that are less than light with longer wavelengths, have shorter wavelengths than the longer ones. Any and all properties of the wave that can be stated in terms of wavelength and proven to exist without the need for a person to interpret the wavelength in terms of personal effect are limited to wavelength and frequency. Unless of course, we are talking about the ‘correlating’ sound wave of certain correlative frequency, in which case the wave might, say, induce resonance in the surrounding medium…but this is not applicable to light except that we can add light wavelengths, or is it frequencies for light? It depends if you want to discuss color, which is not detectable and therefore not measurable… And so on. The issue of resonance is of course the next obvious aspect non-applicable in uniform context, as the combining of electromagnetic waves is not causal in the same way that sound waves are, because with sound waves we are necessarily discussing the effects as described in terms of the propagating medium yet again. You see my point here by now I’m certain. And while I personally find the method we’ve discussed to be actually pretty interesting regardless of all this talk of invalid this and non-existent that. It’s a great model, simple and elegant, and does, as intuited so strongly, demonstrate one correlation definitively: The presence of aesthetic effect on the human psyche. And this is not a trivial or smart ass comment. It is THE CORE ISSUE. Reason being that next, I will present a plausible basis for detecting, determining, and measuring actual correlations consistently applicable to sound and light, in both sets of terms, both contexts, and both in terms of aesthetics as well as innate physical properties. Peace.
Posted on: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:01:32 +0000