The Invisible Universe

[TheBigDog]

As human beings we analyze, process and understand the world through our five senses. That is our only way of taking in and defining information. If we cannot see, hear, taste, touch or smell something, then it remains nebulous and lacking in definition. We only begin to define things by comparing or contrasting them to things we can perceive. The invisible universe is the biggest part of our universe. It is comprised of all the things that are beyond our five senses. It is the concept of how we describe and try to understand those things that are beyond our natural ability to comprehend.

 

We experience the visible light spectrum through our eyes. This is easily the most information rich human sense, and the one we tend to turn to first in describing things. We go so far as to attribute colors as representations for our other senses. Tactile perception of temperature is blue for cold and red for hot. In our very definition of wave energies we classify things as “visible” and “invisible”. Our eyes distinguish a basic set of colors in that range. And the mixing of those colors gives us all of the colors that we know and experience. But because we are limited in out sensory perception to that minor band of waves we can only detect and analyze the rest of the known spectrum with man made devices. And the outputs of those devices are read in two ways. One is to substitute values for colors, translating them into what we can naturally perceive. The other way is to represent them with numbers, and either just understand them as quantities, or let our imaginations draw other conclusions to answer the open questions left in our minds.

 

One example of the invisible universe is that what we understand as “infra red” could to those properly equipped be an entire band of additional colors in a rainbow. But since we have no natural ability to know that such details exist we can only substitute an arbitrary interpretation. And based upon that arbitrary interpretation we make broad judgments about the reality of what we cannot perceive.

 

In radio technology we transmit and receive on very narrow bands to allow as many distinct uses of the spectrum as possible. Now image that you had an organ that could see or hear radio waves. Our use of waves for science and technology would likely be completely twisted. With light we use the whole spectrum, knowing that the colors mix into complex images. With sounds we take complex mixtures across several octaves and understand them as voices and music. So in listening or seeing radio waves from human sources it would be the equivalent of each signal being in its own color, each completely isolated in purpose from all the other colors. A creature that tried to see all the radio waves we transmit like we see the visible spectrum might understand nothing but strangely ordered static. It would be complete nonsense.

 

As we scan the invisible universe we repeat this same exercise of color substitution over and over again. X-rays, microwaves, gamma rays – each is given one set of colors to forever substitute for whatever rich tapestries my lie beyond our natural perception.

 

We play the same game with all things that lie beyond our perceptions - not limiting ourselves to logical or arbitrary substitution within the visual world. Whale songs, echo-location signals of bats and dolphins, the low frequency grumbles of elephants – these phenomena are all objects of human curiosity. But because of our inability to experience them with all of their detail and nuance in their unfiltered mode we are forever limited to retuning them into something we can perceive. Imagine playing 33 1/3 records at 78 rpm’s. That is how we “hear” the low pitched grumblings of elephants. What elements of their communication are forever beyond our understanding because of our inability to listen to the real voice of an elephant? The same is true for whale songs. Our ears and brains are accustomed to sounds that pass through air. Whales are accustomed to sounds that pass through water. The water itself is a quality of what they hear and what the meaning of the sounds they hear represents. We cannot with our limited and air tuned hearing ever comprehend the nuance and meaning of the sounds of whales – or if there is any complex meaning at all.

 

The other limiting factor of our understanding of the invisible universe is how we use language for our thought process. The human mind is also a tool that absorbs things in summary and fills in details as needed. This is a side effect of having adopted fairly simple language and utilizing logic and imagination to fill in the missing pieces. I could look into a fish tank full of fish and tell you that I like the blue one. Anyone could take that statement and probably find the fish I was talking about based upon that description alone. But upon close examination you may find that every fish in the tank has some blue, but only one of them is properly described as blue. But even that fish is not just blue. It is a range of blues from dark to light with highlights in silver and black. But it is best described as the blue fish, and easily identified as such. The deeper you look the more diverse detail is found about the fish. Its description becomes more intricate and complex. So we abbreviate. We call it the blue fish, and when pressed for details we can recall and add them as needed. But even here we are describing the appearance of the fish. We could choose to describe the movement, or how it interacts with its environment, or any other number of details that identify that fish from its companions. And all of this is done through the careful selection of words that provide to the observer the most personally satisfying summary of their observation. And we rely upon common definitions and understandings of words to allow us to communicate our observations to others. This need to communication limits our ability to describe things in new ways. We must work within the language tool set that is common to our audience if they are to understand what we are communicating to them. And our knowledge of and skill with this toolset becomes yet another limiting factor in our ability to understand the invisible universe.

 

So I pose the question, is there a way to bridge the gap into the invisible universe? Or is there a fundamental law that those things beyond one's natural comprehension are simply forever to be mysterious?

 

Bill

[Jay-qu]

Well! You just summed up and intensly elaborated on a conversation I have had with a friend of mine, the question he posed was 'If there was another colour that we could see, what would it look like?' he caught me completly off guard! I delved into how colours are defined by the wavelength of the light and that all we see is all we can really comprehend - I went further and looked into it further, I think there are some insects that can see into the ultraviolet range. But now I think about it, maybe there is a way for our minds to comprehend all this 'invisible' light but our eyes are just inept for the job..

[CraigD]

So I pose the question, is there a way to bridge the gap into the invisible universe? Or is there a fundamental law that those things beyond one's natural comprehension are simply forever to be mysterious?

It seems to me Bill’s confusing the terms “perceive” and “comprehend”. I can’t, without a device such as a radio receiver, perceive EM radiation in the radio spectrum, but, like most people at this site, I comprehend that it is EM radiation of a frequency beyond the range of frequencies I can naturally perceive.

 

Some people are born blind, never able to perceive light through their ordinary sense of sight. These people are able, however, to gain the same comprehension of the physics of EM radiation as any Science student.

 

When I read the text “red”, my thoughts relate it to both the ordinary visual sensation of that color, and the range of EM frequencies associated with it. With a little more cognition, my thoughts relate these things to the text “4*10^14 hz light”. At no time has my eye sensed red while reading this text. I could have similar thoughts with my eyes closed, hearing the quoted text spoken aloud.

 

I believe nearly all of us bridge the gap into the invisible universe almost constantly. That we are discussing it is evidence of that.

[InfiniteNow]

Craig raised an excellent point. While we may need special equipment to "perceive" something, this does not mean we cannot comprehend it. There are things about which I haven't thought enough about to have a reasonable comprehension, but I hold strongly to the belief that nothing is incomprehensible, even if such a concept were only to be understood by a very select few.

 

There are limits as a result of our senses and language, but they are not insurmountable. Perhaps there are more senses than the common 5 and we just haven't found them yet. Maybe the language limits have nothing at all to do with our speech and communication patterns but with our neural circuitry. I'll leave you with this though...

 

Nothing is impossible.

 

 

Cheers. :surprise:

[Tormod]

So I pose the question, is there a way to bridge the gap into the invisible universe? Or is there a fundamental law that those things beyond one's natural comprehension are simply forever to be mysterious?

 

I cannot accept the notion that there is such a law, as it would imply that the universe was created with the intention to hide things from us (which a. puts human beings at a pillar and b. implies a conscious designer).

 

However, there are many ways to bridge the gap into the invisible universe. You described several of those methods yourself. One of the top stories here at Hypography right now is a stunning image created using the Spitzer infrared telescope. We use tools that can see what we can't, and then we translate those observations into something we can study.

 

Similarly, we use electromagnetic waves for almost all our communication, except sound (although we use EM to transmit sound).

 

I think one thing that is missing from your rather excellent little essay is the difference between what is "invisible" and what is "incomprehensible". John Barrow, a British cosmologist, wrote a very good book called "Impossibility: The science of limits and the limits of science". It touches upon this very thing.

 

For example, we don't know what is outside the universe. We can't even agree whether that question makes sense. Likewise, we don't know what was before the universe began. We don't know WHY Pi is an irrational number, nor why prime numbers follow the Riemann function.

 

Some of these things are things that we probably will never understand, nor be able to prove, because they not only go beyond our comprehension and ability to communicate, but they also display a nature that is somehow detached from our very existence. Pi would be pi whether human beings evolved or not (or even if life had not evolved at all).

 

The questions you pose are the very reasons why I find cosmology to be such an inspiring field. It is about all the things we wish we knew, and which we think we might have an answer for (and sometimes we do), but the concepts are often so huge and the things we see so stunning that "comprehension" is completely out of the question to some extent.

 

And - of course - there is always the possibility that we may have gotten everything wrong, a situation we simply have to live with. It makes life beautiful.

[Qfwfq]

I think there are some insects that can see into the ultraviolet range. But now I think about it, maybe there is a way for our minds to comprehend all this 'invisible' light but our eyes are just inept for the job..

Part of our ultraviolet limitation is due to the crystalline lens. Replace it with a lens of glass that's more transparent to UV and the retina will see it better. High in the mountains, the sky will be a deeper blue. Not a reason worth losing the ability to focus.

[skuzie]

So I pose the question, is there a way to bridge the gap into the invisible universe? Or is there a fundamental law that those things beyond one's natural comprehension are simply forever to be mysterious?

Bill

 

The only limitation to bridge the gap is our immagination, our immagination to make sense of the information we absorb aroud us. Ponder this, an off worldly being that is able to 'see' radio waves and makes sense of them, translates what he sees into information. When you hear the radio playing radio waves you make sense of what you 'hear' and turn that into information. Is the off worldly being or you more closer to the truth of what is out there? is the being uncovering the invisible universe and your just interpreting it? i believe that the concept of information itself is the reality of the universe, both you and the off worldly being are no closer to the truth. Hence I think the essence of everything we sense, imagine, and understand is abstract information we create in our consciousness.

 

The question i pose for you ... is there a limit to our immagination? :shrug:

 

;)

[Qfwfq]

The difference is just that the antenna, tuner, rectifier and demodulator aren't part of our physiology and aren't percieved as a sensation according to wavelength. This is so for light, which is EM like the radio waves.

 

When you look at a bottle of water sitting on the table you aren't aware of photons, you know nothing about the wavelength, things are sorted out into a visual effect, that which has a good suvival value i. e. the shape and location of the stuff. You immediately know how to reach out and grab it if you are thirsty.

 

A dog's world is somewhat different from ours.

[arkain101]

Well! You just summed up and intensly elaborated on a conversation I have had with a friend of mine, the question he posed was 'If there was another colour that we could see, what would it look like?' he caught me completly off guard!

 

Excuse me for not responding to the topic opener post. I have not the time to reply as I woul like to right now.

but, as for what you said Jay,

 

Your question could be worded a little differently and still mean the same thing. What would a colour look like that you have not seen before?

Have you seen all the colors imaginable? Of course not, no one surely has. We do have groups of colors, such as primary colors and etc, but they are not at all times consistent either. Lighting, and other surrounding colors can affect its frequency.

 

There are many colors, or many things related to our senses for that matter, that we can not imagine if we have not experienced. This does not mean that they are not there available to be experienced. Instead, they are not in our memory to be brought out and imagined. I suppose this means that we know ONLY what we have stored. Yet creativity strives as part of our human nature.

 

The question that is more mind boggling, at least in my opinion, in relation to color is this.

 

If the universe appeared (regardless of your belief in the process of which it did appear) and in the process of its appearence, Electromagnetic Radiation and Matter (along with particles, Frequencies, gravity, Constents, Laws, Energy, mass) and all the other parts nessecery for its function and operation were created along with it, or, created along to make it (the universe), then at what point was color (Best to just deal with color, one at a time) created, or characterized as important, or stored somehow someway, so that when life finally came about (once the universe was cooled down and calm enough to allow it to appear and evolve) it would be able to experience the sensation or what have you of COLOR. But not only experience it, but find that it is actually assigned to specific frequencies which allows our consciousness to develope a code so to speak, so that not all is the same, and things can be decifered and differentiated from one another, and ultimatly giving the ability to a consciousness or life form that can see, the seperate distinction from the substances (energy and matter) that create the 'information' of which allows a consciousness to distinguish itself other than these substances.

 

To summerize,

Why was color created along with the universe and stored in some unkown way, with intention for life to be able to have it to see.

 

Or,if it was not designed for life to use,

 

Why did color appear along with the universe when its substance has no Use the mechanics of its operation.

 

Or

 

How was color "created" after the universe had appeared so that life could make use of this entity (color) to assist its survival. (Surely there was a FIRST life form to SEE color).

[Qfwfq]

To summerize,

Why was color created along with the universe and stored in some unkown way, with intention for life to be able to have it to see.

 

Or,if it was not designed for life to use,

 

Why did color appear along with the universe when its substance has no Use the mechanics of its operation.

 

Or

 

How was color "created" after the universe had appeared so that life could make use of this entity (color) to assist its survival. (Surely there was a FIRST life form to SEE color).

Actually, colour is a "creation" of each life form that is evolved to perceive it. It's a physiological matter. You see colour because your visual system responds to different wavelengths creating different sensations.

 

In short, it's you that creates the colours that you see.

[arkain101]

I am not sure I understand your 'explanation' as something that explains it.

 

Its quite the mysterious example, isnt it?

 

This is why I often think that in order to create a "unifying theory", one has to tie in consciousness or life for that matter in with the Energy and matter and etc. I think if you create a unifying theory it should 'unify' nearly every basic principle that is involved for existence.

[hallenrm]

I think the problem arises from our presumption that the reality is universal and singular.

 

What would be the reaction of the participants of this thread, if it was accepted (authoritatively) that the reality can in fact be plural :star:

[TheBigDog]

It seems to me Bill’s confusing the terms “perceive” and “comprehend”. I can’t, without a device such as a radio receiver, perceive EM radiation in the radio spectrum, but, like most people at this site, I comprehend that it is EM radiation of a frequency beyond the range of frequencies I can naturally perceive.

 

Some people are born blind, never able to perceive light through their ordinary sense of sight. These people are able, however, to gain the same comprehension of the physics of EM radiation as any Science student.

 

When I read the text “red”, my thoughts relate it to both the ordinary visual sensation of that color, and the range of EM frequencies associated with it. With a little more cognition, my thoughts relate these things to the text “4*10^14 hz light”. At no time has my eye sensed red while reading this text. I could have similar thoughts with my eyes closed, hearing the quoted text spoken aloud.

 

I believe nearly all of us bridge the gap into the invisible universe almost constantly. That we are discussing it is evidence of that.

A late reply, but a reply none the less...

 

One of the points I am making is that those things which are outside of our natural ability to perceive are interpreted into something which we can perceive. This is undoubtedly losing detail in the translation process. With the loss of detail comes loss of comprehension. Imagine you saw a live performance of Beethoven's 5th Symphony. Then you bought the CD of the performance. The digital recording is incredibly true to the live experience and for our purposes is identical. I have a stereo with dancing lights on the display. When I play music the little bars bounce up and down. They are a visual representation of the music that is playing, but they are a poor substitute for the music itself. When we translate something from its native frequency into one that fits our own sensory range we are making arbitrary assignments of the translated values. Without native understanding we may be throwing away subtlety of information that is highly important to the meaning in its native world. That is why I said that we cannot truly comprehend that which is beyond our native sensory range. We can take a stab at it, but we cannot ever know for certain what is being lost in translation.

 

Take the example of the blue fish. To our eyes it is those shades of blue, but to eyes with the natural ability to see in ultraviolet it may be another color all together. Or a spectrum of colors that exist in ultraviolet which our own eyes cannot perceive, and so we never suspect its existence even when we are surrounded by it.

 

Yes, we can very ably build equipment to give us information about those things which are beyond our perception. But I ask you this; if we did not have ears but we could detect sound, would we have an appreciation of the concept of music as opposed to just sound?

 

Bill

[Doctordick]

I find your post extremely insightful. I hope my judgement is valid.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Moontanman]

Well! You just summed up and intensly elaborated on a conversation I have had with a friend of mine, the question he posed was 'If there was another colour that we could see, what would it look like?' he caught me completly off guard! I delved into how colours are defined by the wavelength of the light and that all we see is all we can really comprehend - I went further and looked into it further, I think there are some insects that can see into the ultraviolet range. But now I think about it, maybe there is a way for our minds to comprehend all this 'invisible' light but our eyes are just inept for the job..

 

During WW2 a way to signal that was invisible to most people was worked out. People who's cornea has been removed (due to some injury or disease) can see some of the lower end of the UV spectrum. People with normal corneas cannot see these wave lengths. So people who's cornea had been removed were used to look for signals from UV lamps between ships and the shore. The people who could see these lights described the UV light as a deep but bright blue. since this was a wave length or color everyone else could not see this might be at least a partial answer to what you were discussing.

[TheBigDog]

During WW2 a way to signal that was invisible to most people was worked out. People who's cornea has been removed (due to some injury or disease) can see some of the lower end of the UV spectrum. People with normal corneas cannot see these wave lengths. So people who's cornea had been removed were used to look for signals from UV lamps between ships and the shore. The people who could see these lights described the UV light as a deep but bright blue. since this was a wave length or color everyone else could not see this might be at least a partial answer to what you were discussing.

That is an interesting tidbit. I think QFWFQ alluded to it earlier too, from another angle. My question would be about the cones in the eye, and what they are able to tell us about UV light. Are we colorblind in the UV and only able to see it as blue?

 

Bill

[Moontanman]

That is an interesting tidbit. I think QFWFQ alluded to it earlier too, from another angle. My question would be about the cones in the eye, and what they are able to tell us about UV light. Are we colorblind in the UV and only able to see it as blue?

 

Bill

 

That's a good question, the color was described as deep blue which is what you would expect from a color further from blue. If you have ever tried to focus on a black light I would say the color of the light is deep darker blue than say the sky but it's really not violet as you would think of violet paint. So it must have excited the cones in the eye in a way that was similar to blue light as compared to red light. If the cones in the eye were not already set up to detect UV light then I wouldn't expect the UV to resemble any other color of light. Maybe it has no connection with the idea at all, maybe we are only capable of seeing colors from violet to red and any other excitation of the eye will be seen as one of the colors we already can see.