sound and light (previously JI,ET's and special)

The field of vibration we understand to be 'sound' is
>approx.
>16 to 32, 768 cycles per second. Our bodies have 'ears' and their
associated
>mechanisms to experience that vibration as sound. Light , and colour , is
>also
>a vibration but its frequency is more in the region of 562, 949, 953, 421
,
>321
>cycles a second. Each colour has its own frequency , just like pitch.
>So , in one sense , you could say that colour (or light ) is simply a sound
>that is
>so high that you need a different bodily organ to perceive it (the ear is
>only
>designed for certain frequencies) , or , alternatively , sound is simply
>light of
>such a low frequency that it cannot be perceived by the eyes

A further thought on this light vs sound idea.
Forgive me if it is a little off topic for this list.
When a frequency is doubled in its vibration, we have a rise in pitch of an
octave. In theory , if the doubling continues (for between 34 and 45 further
octaves) , our 'sound' will now be perceived by our eyes in the form of
colour/light.
It should be possible , therefore , to 'transpose' , for example , a J.S.
Bach
prelude up the required number of octaves so that it is perceived visually
as
an intricate and harmonically balanced 'light- show' . Dissonances would
show as colour clashes and harmonies as colour compliments.
Perhaps in the future we may be playing our favourite optical C.D's at the
end of a busy day instead of , or as well as , aural C.D's.
Anyway , just a thought.
If there is anything glaringly obviously wrong with my sound / light
frequency relationships , please let me know. I am by no means a
scientist , or a mathematician. I am barely a musician.

Buddhi

Buddhi wrote,

>If there is anything glaringly obviously wrong with my sound / light
>frequency relationships , please let me know

There is. First of all, they are completely different physical phenomena.
Sound is longitudinal pressure waves (which is why there is no sound in
space), while light is transverse waves in the electromagetic field.
Secondly, similar light frequencies don't clash but blend together to
produce an apparent intermediate frequency. Our computer monitors and TV
screens use only three frequencies to emulate the entire visual spectrum.
Imagine if we had only three notes! Thirdly, light does not normally have
harmonics . . . I could go on and on.

--- In tuning@egroups.com, "Buddhi Wilcox" <buddhi@p...> wrote:

http://www.egroups.com/message/tuning/14869

> It should be possible , therefore , to 'transpose' , for example ,
a J.S.Bach prelude up the required number of octaves so that it is
perceived visually as an intricate and harmonically balanced 'light-
show' . Dissonances would show as colour clashes and harmonies as
colour compliments.

There was some discussion of all of this business last year -- was it
around March?? -- on the Tuning List.

Some experiments were done, and some listers concluded that, while it
was possible to transpose sound into light, there was no particular
esthetic satisfaction with the results. In other words, the esthetic
satisfactions were entirely subjective and pertaining *ONLY* to a
given medium at a time...

Or at least I think that's what I remember...

________ ____ __ _
Joseph Pehrson