Looping Spectrum Theory: Claims and Logic.

Part One: Waves and Particles.

Claim 1:

If you want to measure something, the most fundamental measurements you can make are on the binary level.

Logic:

Binaries are the most fundamental aspect of anything we can measure because it gives us the option of a frame of reference. Anything simpler than a binary would be a singularity, but in a singularity everything is homogenous and there are no frames of reference to use for measurements.

Claim 2:

The binary of the observable universe is waves and particles. In other words, everything in the observable universe is a wave, a particle, or a combination of the two.

Logic:

Another way of saying this is: everything in the Universe is energy, and we can observe it as either waves or particles. The periodic table and the standard model are how we have organized the particles, and the electromagnetic spectrum is how we have organized the waves. It is true that some things seem to be both waves and particles at the same time, but even when something is “both at the same time” it is still made of the same two ingredients: waves and particles. Another way of thinking about this is if everything in the Universe was either black or white, then something that was both black and white at the same time would be gray.  

Hypothesis 1:

It should be possible to “upgrade” the periodic table of elements by adding the electromagnetic spectrum to it. A table like this would show not just the patterns in atoms, but in both atoms and waves, and should act as a sort of “periodic table of the observable universe.” A separate table may be necessary for sub atomic waves and particles.

Work so far:

I have more to say about this diagram in a later section to explain why gravity and mass are at the middle, but the main thing that is interesting about this infinity symbol is that it accounts for the entire periodic table, and the entire electromagnetic spectrum. So pretty much the entire observable Universe is represented here, and I noticed some interesting connections:

Gamma waves have a connection to the heavy elements because they are radioactive and give off gamma radiation. Hydrogen has a connection to microwaves because I know SETI sends signals out into space on the hydrogen line, so I’m guessing hydrogen is on a similar frequency as microwave radiation. There also may be a connection here with microwave ovens because they are able to vibrate the hydrogen in the water molecules, but I think there is more to microwave ovens that I don’t fully understand yet. So after I realized the heavy elements had a connection with gamma waves and hydrogen had a connection with microwaves I figured there must be a connection between the elements in the middle and visible light. The “middle elements” are where we find the shiny metals, and that seems like a connection to me; they are reflecting a lot of visible light and are observed to be lustrous. 

So it seems like the energy of the Observable Universe flows like this. I don’t know of a better term for this than simply calling it energy, but I’m sure there is a more detailed way to describe it. It is probably possible to view the energy flowing in the opposite direction under certain circumstances, though I’m currently not sure what they would be.

Next Steps:

It should be possible to use the spectral lines of each atom to get a better idea of what frequency of radiation each atom is in tune with. Once we do that, we should be able to find a pattern that lets us “fine tune” the atoms like radio stations, and rearrange them like the replicators on Star Trek.

Part Two: Electromagnetism, Gravity, and Color.

Claim 3:

The various phenomena we observe in the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum also occur at the other parts of the spectrum. (such as color, transparency, shadows, reflection etc..)

Logic:

Electromagnetism has many different frequencies to it, but it is all one force, so it should all follow the same rules.

Mini Lesson:

As I’ve been working on this theory, it has come to my attention that most people don’t know that magenta is a color we can see but it doesn’t have its own wavelength, so here is a mini lesson about that:

The visible spectrum of light goes from red to blue, as can be seen in the rainbow:

(There is a bit of inconsistency when it comes to color names at the blue end of the spectrum, so it may seem like violet is actually the last color, and not blue, and violet is associated with purple, but for the sake of this paper we will keep things simplified and just call it blue light.)

So this is the visible spectrum of light, and it represents the colors that have wavelengths that we can measure. However, we are able to see magenta, and magenta is the color that links the red end of the spectrum to the blue end to make a color wheel rather than a color line.

So magenta represents a pattern of light that we can observe, but we can not measure.

Claim 4:

There aren’t any other colors in the Universe; the two sets of primary colors (Red-Green-Blue and Cyan-Yellow-Magenta) and additive and subtractive mixing represent all of the color patterns.

Logic:

This one is difficult to “prove” but I figure if an animal is a tetrachromat, that doesn’t mean they actually see new colors, it just means they are able to see more complexity in the existing colors. In other words, they can distinguish between more tints and shades of a color, but wouldn’t actually be adding a new color. I also figure if they are able to see into the infrared or ultraviolet ends of the spectrum, that wouldn’t add new colors but it would stretch out their spectrum. They would probably see colors in places we humans do not, and it may even look like auras in certain cases.

I think this diagram does a good job of explaining why there probably aren’t any new colors out there. Having a new primary color introduces quite a few problems:

1. Red and blue no longer mix with each other, so this would delete magenta.

2. The absence of magenta raises further questions when the colors are inverted for subtractive color, because now we would be missing a primary color.

3. What would be in the middle of the diagram now? Normally that spot is for white in additive color or black in subtractive, but now white is off to the side. If white would still be in the middle, then what would be in the spot labeled white above?

Further logic to support there only being three primary colors lies in the concept of three itself. Three gives us a beginning, a middle, and an end. This pattern of three is found in triangles, protons, neutrons, and electrons, the three dimensions, and many other places in math, science, logic and philosophy. It is the “magic” number.

I feel like saying there are colors we can’t observe or comprehend is pretty much like saying there are Unicorns, but we can’t see them.

Claim 4:

The electromagnetic spectrum can be viewed as a whole in the shape of a circle, just like the color wheel. In the electromagnetic wheel, gamma waves would be the blue, visible light would be the green, radio waves would be the red, and gravity would be the magenta.

Logic:

This is why I gave this theory the name “Looping Spectrum.” I figured if visible light had a color (magenta) that wasn’t measurable, but it connected both ends of the visible spectrum, then the whole electromagnetic spectrum should have something like that as well. I figure gravity is the thing that fills this role because it is the last piece of the puzzle when it comes to grand unification.

Claim 5:

Gravity and Mass are two sides of the same coin. I’m still having trouble finding the right words to phrase this one, but the basic idea is that mass and gravity are two parts of the same phenomenon, similar to wave particle duality. (Gravity is the wave aspect of it, and mass is the particle aspect of it.) This is also similar to how electricity and magnetism are two parts of the same phenomenon.

Logic:

The more massive something is the more gravity it has, and the two phenomena have a linear relationship. This is why gravity and mass are at the center of the infinity diagram earlier in the paper.

Part Three: Particles, Quantity, and Shape.

Claim 6:

The circle is the most fundamental shape of the Universe.

Logic:

Circles are defined by a single point, making them more basic than the other shapes. (Specific circles are defined by their single point and a radius from that point, but circles in general are defined by a single point.) Also, since energy cannot be created or destroyed, overall it has to hold itself in balance, and circles are the most balanced shape.

Claim 7:

The only difference between a circle and a single point is how “zoomed in” on it you are. In other words, the only difference is your perspective.

Logic:

The logic behind this is essentially the form of the cone. A cone is a single point on one end, and a circle at the other. Perspective (and therefore the observable universe) is entirely dependent on the cone form. Also, the cone of perspective goes both ways: we see everything close to us (circle end) and it goes off into the vanishing point (point end) and then we also see everything far from us (circle end) and it gets focused into our eye (point end). Even our eyes are cone shaped. As I mentioned earlier, everything we want to measure can be broken down to a binary, but it can’t get any smaller than that because there would be no frame of reference. Cones represent the binary of circles, the most fundamental shape. Also, observation is the most fundamental aspect of science, and observation is dependant on perspective. I do not think it is a coincidence that cones are so important to both perspective and calculus. With perspective there is even a binary for the cones themselves, as demonstrated in this diagram:

Claim 8:

Circles (and points) are responsible for all the patterns in the Universe, including cones and conic sections, spirals, fractals, and the various forms of the torus.

Logic:

This is a claim that is hard to back up with logic other than: it fits the pattern. In other words, the only way I know to prove this is to demonstrate all the patterns in the Universe, and this isn’t the paper for that. Hopefully you already have a general idea of patterns made by spirals, fractals, and the torus.

Claim 9: The torus forms (sphere, spindle torus, horn torus, and ring torus) are the most fundamental forms (along with cones), and these forms are the most basic repeating pattern of the Universe.

Logic:

If the circle/point is the most fundamental shape, then the next step up from there would be to talk about the relationship between two circles/points. The torus is all about the relationship between two circles, and their patterns are all over nature.

Claim 10:

The only difference between a particle and a wave is your perspective. A spinning sphere, when viewed head on from the axis, looks like a steady stream, and seems like a particle. If you look at it from the side, every time it spins around gives you a “beat,” and that beat has a frequency and a wavelength.

Logic:

This one is difficult to explain without an animation, but I will try. Imagine this spindle torus spinning on its axis. Now imagine it is generating fields as it spins, and these fields are shaped like the original spindle torus. These fields are generated every time it makes a complete rotation, and they grow out and expand from the original torus. All of these fields spin around the same axis, but they are many different sizes. When you observe the torus from the side, at the equator, you will get a beat every time a field washes over you, or hits your sensor, or whatever it is you are using to observe the torus. This would be the wave. If you were to observe directly from the axis you would see a steady stream, and this would seem solid enough to call it a particle.

Claim 10:

The equation E=mc² is interchangeable with the equation A= πr².

Logic:

The two equations use the same mathematical relationships. Any work done with E=mc² could be represented by a circle diagram, like this:

Claim 11:

The full equation for energy mass equivalence E²=(mc²)² + (pc)² is interchangeable with the equation c²=a²+b².

Logic:

Again, the two equations use the same mathematical relationships, so any work done with E²=(mc²)² + (pc)² can be represented by a right triangle diagram, like this:

Hypothesis 2:

Using the equations for energy/mass equivalence and their associated shapes and ratios, it should be possible to develop an understanding of wave/particle equivalence. I think the goal here is to realize that waves and particles are two sides of the same coin, or maybe a better way of saying it is all waves are actually particles in disguise and vice-versa. Using these basic ratio set ups it should be possible to draw lines of connection between each particle size and each wave frequency to see how they are connected.

Work so far:

Next steps:

This ties back to the first hypothesis about spectral lines, where the next steps are to find the waves associated with particles, and then use the equations to find new patterns and make new predictions.

Claim 12:

Infinity and zero aren’t numbers, just like how white and black aren’t colors.

Logic:

In design fundamentals, black and white are considered values, not color. I think numbers and quantity follow a similar set up with black representing 0 and white representing infinity. Numbers come from counting things and assigning a quantity that represents the value of the counting. Counting itself has a beat and a frequency, so quantity and numbers are like colors, while 0 and infinity are absolutes, so they are more like white and black, which are values.

Claim 13:

One is not a quantity.

Logic:

Quantity comes from counting, and if only one thing has been spotted, it doesn’t need to be counted. Counting, and the frequency and beat associated with counting, begins with the number 2. (And 2 things represent the binary/duality nature of the Universe)

Claim 14:

One and infinity are the same concept.

Logic:

The idea of one and infinity being the same isn’t new; it is essentially what the concept of a singularity is: something that is infinity and one at the same time. Another way of saying this that makes more sense is to use the word “everything” instead of “infinity.” I suppose there could be a semantics battle over the difference between everything and infinity, but the general idea is that if you have everything, then nothing could exist outside of it, and all of it together would be one thing. This idea of infinity and one being two sides of the same concept ties back to the circle and the point being two sides of the most fundamental shape, where circles would represent infinity and points would represent one. Keep in mind that I don’t mean to say one and infinity are the same quantity. It is more like one and infinity are NOT quantities; they are instead two sides of the concept of value rather than the concept of quantity. (I feel like it would be good to explain how I think of value and quantity as being different things: Quantity is about counting and frequency, while value is what something has in order to be counted in the first place.)

Claim 15:

There is a value wheel that behaves like the color wheel.

This value wheel may be more of an art thing than a science thing, but I think the point here is that value and color, just like value and quantity, are two parts of the same concept. It should be possible to make new predictions about value and quantity by using the patterns in the color wheel and relating them to the value wheel.

Part 4: The Logo Diagram.

I figured I should add a bit about the diagram in this paper. This is an infographic I made to explain the different pieces of it and how it builds up into the full logo:

The full logo also includes the color wheel around it like this:

With it all set up like this I think it represents the most basic shapes of the Universe. It connects shapes to color by having the triangle point to the primary colors, and the upside down diamond shape points to magenta, being the color that turns the spectrum into a loop. The diagram can be inverted too to represent subtractive color also, like this:

I suspect that this diagram can be used to sort out the relationships between difference forces and phenomenon in the Universe by comparing them to the ratios visible in the diagram. Pi is represented here by the circle and the line, but there are many other ratios here as well, such as the ratio between the diameter and one of the sides of the triangle. There are also 30 60 90 triangles here which tie back to the claims I made about using circles and right triangles to compare waves and particles using the set ups in the energy mass equivalence equations and the circle/triangle equations.

Claim 16:

There are 5 dimensions, and they correspond to the 5 points in the diagram, which correspond to the 4 points in the color wheel, plus 1 more for a total of 5.

Logic:

I think dimension can be a confusing word sometimes, but the basic idea here is that the traditional 3 dimensions are like the 3 primary colors. Then the 4^th dimension is the one that is observable but hard to measure, and it links the other three together. Time and magenta both fill this role as “the 4^th one” and represent the point that is more abstract than the others but still crucial to the whole thing. The 5^th point represents something that is separate from the 4, and can be either inside or outside the wheel that contains the 4 points.