Are musical notes really exist?

[altaylar2000]

6 minutes ago, Eiot said:

In your title, do you use the verb "to exist" as an adjective?

No, I think I was wrong. It was correct "Do exist"?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

There is no real vacuum system

!

Moderator Note

You need to stop trolling your own thread and explain what you mean. You started with musical notes and now you're compounding your mistakes with light. Discuss some mainstream science or the thread will be closed.

 

[altaylar2000]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Discuss some mainstream science or the thread will be closed.

Even from the point of view of the mainstream, there is no pure vacuum. Outer space is filled with rarefied gas and dust

[joigus]

Just for the benefit of other users who are presumably going to waste a lot of effort here. I already explained what makes musical notes special --a reasonably centrally placed A major, which is quite audible for a large range of people, but possibly arbitrary as to its exact value--, and then the harmonics, which are defined as integer multiples or fractions of it. Also gave hints that the question is very old --goes back to the Pythagorean school--. I equally argued that light is very different, because we don't intuitively perceive it as "frequencies of something oscillating", although it is, in the last analysis. Also hinted to the fact that when you play a note after another, they overlap, and you notice that they are in sync.

All these points went unnoticed. The OP doesn't seem to care one way or another. In fact, this thread could well end up being about gravity. Who knows.

Edited April 2, 2021 by joigus

[altaylar2000]

31 minutes ago, joigus said:

Also hinted to the fact that when you play a note after another, they overlap, and you notice that they are in sync.

In what sense are they synchronized? Height within an concrete octave?
It is self-evident, or are you talking about something else?

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

In what sense are they synchronized? Height within an concrete octave?
It is self-evident, or are you talking about something else?

An image is worth a thousand words:

[Ghideon]

43 minutes ago, joigus said:

Also gave hints that the question is very old --goes back to the Pythagorean school

I noted that one and found it interesting! There are papers that argues Pythagoras and Just tuning system has a biological connection: (emphasis mine)

Quote

Here we demonstrate that, on average, the frequency ratios of the resonant modes from all the cochleas studied possessed small integer ratios. The ratios are the same as those found by Pythagoras as being most musically pleasant and which form the basis of the Just tuning system. The statistical significance of the results was verified against a random distribution of ratios.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037988

@altaylar2000 Note the integer ratios in the paper and in @joigus picture.

But I do not know the significance of this example since (as I stated in an earlier post) there are papers claiming other results. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by Ghideon
x-post w Joigus, added reference. Emphasis

[altaylar2000]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

An image is worth a thousand words:

It seems it about obertones

6 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

 Pythagoras and Just tuning system has a biological connection: (emphasis mine)

It also seemed amazing to me, this seems to be the only example when natural numbers really exist in nature.

(I do not know if this is there in the paper, but I mean that oscillations that are multiples of the natural series enter into resonance)

[joigus]

7 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

It seems it about obertones

Sorry, what are those?

11 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

I noted that one and found it interesting! There are papers that argues Pythagoras and Just tuning system has a biological connection: (emphasis mine)

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037988

@altaylar2000 Note the integer ratios in the paper and in @joigus picture.

But I do not know the significance of this example since (as I stated in an earlier post) there are papers claiming other results. 

Very interesting. Thank you. Concerning the reason why we're so "tuned" to being pleased by sequences (or longer overlaps, as in chords) of frequencies that are related to one another by integer numbers; my guess is as good as anybody's. But I don't find it very surprising.

What I find even more surprising is the fact that there seems to be this fixed reference of a central note. Anybody who's attended a classical music concert --or Renaissance music--, which I do quite often, is familiar with the protocol of all the musicians tuning their instruments to A major when the concert is about to start. What defines A major?

Even more amazing, apparently there are people who have absolute pitch. I know about this because I have a friend who is a physicist and advanced piano player who has it. These gifted people can tell A major with no "external reference", so to speak.

[sethoflagos]

2 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

It seems it about obertones

It also seemed amazing to me, this seems to be the only example when natural numbers really exist in nature.

(I do not know if this is there in the paper, but I mean that oscillations that are multiples of the natural series enter into resonance)

Consider this:

Per joigus' post, any given structure tends to resonate with a series of acoustic waves that are an integer multiple of some fundamental frequency. That fundamental frequency along with the acoustic intensity gives us an idea of the physical size of the structure, and its proximity. 

New point: these resonances are related not only harmonically, but also in phase. 

Therefore if our ears detect a number of simultaneous frequencies that have a simple harmonic relationship and are in phase with each other, then we can reasonably deduce that they came from a single source - perhaps prey, perhaps predator. We could learn to match these complex sounds to precise sources critical to our survival.

If we sense either phase shifts or non-harmonic tones within the sound, this indicates that there is more than one source object - useful to know if you are up against a single wolf or a pack. 

This suggests to me that our distant ancestors may well have learnt to associate simple harmonic waveforms as 'safe' and complex non-harmonic, out-of-phase sounds as 'dangerous'. 

Not much established science to back up this hypothesis. But it seems a reasonable one to explain why we find frequency ratios of 2, 3 and 5 'pleasant'. And since all twelve notes of the chromatic scale (at least in western music) are constructed from these three ratios (at least approximately), the roots of both harmony and melody seem to follow with some logical consistency.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

Sorry, what are those?

I'm guessing at a typo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone

And the idea of "concordance" or "consonance" is cultural, not mathematical.
 

 

[altaylar2000]

1 hour ago, sethoflagos said:

New point: these resonances are related not only harmonically, but also in phase. 

Therefore if our ears detect a number of simultaneous frequencies that have a simple harmonic relationship and are in phase with each other, then we can reasonably deduce that they came from a single source - perhaps prey, perhaps predator. We could learn to match these complex sounds to precise sources critical to our survival.

If we sense either phase shifts or non-harmonic tones within the sound, this indicates that there is more than one source object - useful to know if you are up against a single wolf or a pack. 

This suggests to me that our distant ancestors may well have learnt to associate simple harmonic waveforms as 'safe' and complex non-harmonic, out-of-phase sounds as 'dangerous'. 

Not much established science to back up this hypothesis. But it seems a reasonable one to explain why we find frequency ratios of 2, 3 and 5 'pleasant'. And since all twelve notes of the chromatic scale (at least in western music) are constructed from these three ratios (at least approximately), the roots of both harmony and melody seem to follow with some logical consistency.

Thank you, this is very interesting.
But, as far as I understand, this applies only to harmonic consonance, that is, simultaneous sounding with overlapping, but melodic, that is sequential, does not apply, right?

[sethoflagos]

3 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

Thank you, this is very interesting.
But, as far as I understand, this applies only to harmonic consonance, that is, simultaneous sounding with overlapping, but melodic, that is sequential, does not apply, right?

We don't need the pitches to sound together to sense the harmonic relationship between them. 

Also, I don't know about you, but I would find music built entirely out of consonant intervals unstimulating to say the least. Good music tells good stories and good stories need some level of conflict. You can't have a Beowulf without Grendel and his mum tagging along in the background.

[altaylar2000]

12 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

We don't need the pitches to sound together to sense the harmonic relationship between them. 

 

But on the acoustically level, in the sense of the superposition of waves on top of each other, it matters. That is, in the melody they are superimposed less or not at all, there is no resonance.

And if we assume that this biological reflex was developed precisely at resonance, then we are talking about different mechanisms

[sethoflagos]

2 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

But on the acoustically level, in the sense of the superposition of waves on top of each other, it matters. That is, in the melody they are superimposed less or not at all, there is no resonance.

And if we assume that this biological reflex was developed precisely at resonance, then we are talking about different mechanisms

Two items to ponder:

1) Notes don't just stop: they bounce around the room as echoes and gradually fade.

2) We have pitch memory. Even when a sound fades into imperceptibility, we can still hold it in memory almost indefinitely. How long do you have to be parted from someone before you forget what their voice sounded like? 

[altaylar2000]

btw, Here, you probably need to take into account the diffraction and interference of waves, they can greatly change the sound flow

[swansont]

7 hours ago, altaylar2000 said:

Even from the point of view of the mainstream, there is no pure vacuum. Outer space is filled with rarefied gas and dust

Where did anyone claim a pure vacuum exists?

[altaylar2000]

1 minute ago, sethoflagos said:

wo items to ponder:

1) Notes don't just stop: they bounce around the room as echoes and gradually fade.

2) We have pitch memory. Even when a sound fades into imperceptibility, we can still hold it in memory almost indefinitely. How long do you have to be parted from someone before you forget what their voice sounded like? 

I agree, but there is still a difference.
I think this is related to the fact that, according to my observations, an intense and clear strike on the strings is strong, it gives a much richer and more beautiful sound, this can make even chords sound that do not sound melodic

1 minute ago, swansont said:

Where did anyone claim a pure vacuum exists?

he assumed this, since stardust in the sense of reflection is no different here

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

 he assumed this, since stardust in the sense of reflection is no different here

Not at all. You claimed something about seeing things because light reflects off of "dust and so on" but there would much less of this in any vacuum, and yet we can see light sources just fine, with no dimming.  It doesn't depend on any refection, because if it did, it would be harder to see as we improved the vacuum. (plus the problem of geometry and forming an image if the light were coming from multiple directions)

 

You're just making stuff up, which is one reason you can't support it rigorously (and consequently have to make straw man arguments), and it's gotten very tiresome.

[sethoflagos]

4 minutes ago, altaylar2000 said:

I agree, but there is still a difference.
I think this is related to the fact that, according to my observations, an intense and clear strike on the strings is strong, it gives a much richer and more beautiful sound, this can make even chords sound that do not sound melodic

Do you play the violin?

If you do then you know that you can play chords by multiple stopping.

Then you can play out the notes of that chord sequentially as an arpeggio - you still 'sense' the full chord don't you?

Then intersperse a few passing notes between the intervals to make the line less 'gappy' and you have a melodic line based on that chord. 

I think there's less of a difference than you imagine.

[altaylar2000]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not at all. You claimed something about seeing things because light reflects off of "dust and so on" but there would much less of this in any vacuum, and yet we can see light sources just fine, with no dimming.  It doesn't depend on any refection, because if it did, it would be harder to see as we improved the vacuum. (plus the problem of geometry and forming an image if the light were coming from multiple directions)

 

You're just making stuff up, which is one reason you can't support it rigorously (and consequently have to make straw man arguments), and it's gotten very tiresome.

It was not about sources but about rays. The source was discussed above, this one has a simple explanation: the source reflects already reflected light, respectively, it behaves like any other object
If it was about sourse, there is no matter "dark room". I can see the sun, there is no need darkness

Edited April 2, 2021 by altaylar2000

[swansont]

1 minute ago, altaylar2000 said:

It was not about sources but about rays. The source was discussed above, this one has a simple explanation: the source reflects already reflected light, respectively, it behaves like any other object
If it was about sourse, there is no matter "dark room". I can see the sun, there is no need darkness

Your argument means you claim to see the sun because it reflects off of dust in space, and aren't getting light directly from it.

[altaylar2000]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Your argument means you claim to see the sun because it reflects off of dust in space, and aren't getting light directly from it.

from everything from which light is reflected

[swansont]

Just now, altaylar2000 said:

from everything from which light is reflected

It's up to you to show this is true (which it isn't)

[altaylar2000]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

It's up to you to show this is true (which it isn't)

 

I see no other explanation, we do not see direct radiation, this is obvious