Talk:Cymatics

I would like to make an addition to the "In Healing" section of this article. There is a section from the book entitled "Healing Sound" by Jonathan Goldman, published by Healing Arts Press that is about cymatic therapy. It talks about practioners of cymatic therapy and how the science of cymatics is used to heal certain conditions and illnesses in the body. It may be an updated, or more current, account of how cymatics and the science of the transformative nature of vibration is used in healing and music related physical therapies.

I will begin working on this addition tonight and tomorrow and will post it before the end of the week. Please let me know if you agree with the content I wwill contribute, or if you contest the changes I plan to make to this already well-written article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesRhodes425 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

another example

Nigel Stanford. He seems to use a lot of cymatics in his music videos. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oItpVa9fs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.180.139.162 (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sound Not A Wave

What's with the paragraph describing how sound is not a wave? I'm pretty sure it's accepted knowledge it is, Can I get some info on this? Davidsmind 08/27/09 —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

If sound was a wave, and not a sphere, you wouldn't be able to hear people speak when you where standing behind them. Thinking of sound as a 2D wave is an (sometimes overly) simplistic model which in some situations provides (a lot) insight because it is much easier to think of and picture than a 3D sphere. Hyacinth (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

um, I think that's flawed logic...radio waves aren't spherical are they? They shoot in all directions. Light waves also go in all directions, but they are impeded by certain material. Explain this, or I'll just go ahead and remove the note:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound#Sound_wave_properties_and_characteristics

"Sound is a travelling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard, or the sensation stimulated in organs of hearing by such vibrations."

Davidsmind 11:34pm 08/28/09 (PST)

That's great. Can we stick to sound and to this article? Hyacinth (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that is what I was doing. "Sound is a travelling wave"; I asked you to disprove this and you couldn't so I removed the claim from the article. Davidsmind 09/15/09 —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC).

A wave can have any topology. If you bend an antenna wire into a ring, it emits a toroidal wave. A point source emits a spherical wave. A line source emits a cylindrical wave. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. 71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just to bring a bit of Clarity... Sound travels through air as a longitudinal wave. Explained very well here; http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/tralon.html I encourage anyone looking at cymatics to look into Acoustics and Physics. Its far more detailed (and gives precise explanations for the pretty cymatics patterns). Usually waves (sound included) are presented as transverse in discussions graphs, because it is much easier to present on a 2D surface of paper, otherwise you would need to be endlessly cutting up golfballs inside tennis balls inside basket balls to accurately depict wave propagation, but fortunately the maths is the same :)

Oscarg 11:34am 09/16/14 (PST)

A sound is a wave. A pressure wave. Some of the claims made of Cymatics are in the pseudoscientific realm. Can we please put this article under "pseudoscience"? 80.229.20.182 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some claims may be pseudoscience doesn't make the topic itself pseudoscience. Brian Josephson (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Image

The image does not display correctly on my work computer.-Hyacinth 18:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No longer an issue as the image(s) have been removed. Hyacinth (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Context?

What is this article about? A clearer intro would help. Zocky 23:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This topic covers the much talked about what is Cymatics, and the fundamentals behind it. One does the study of Cymatic OM as well, and that too is resonance structured. I too wonder how does it fall that the OM chanting creates vibrations on a different level, and forms and shapes. You can look up Cymatics & The Energy Chakras (7 of them).

Even though these 7 chakras have a very high energy, there are also other high points of energy around the world where the Ley Lines travel. These include-

• Bermuda Triangle
• Karachi, Pakistan
• Devil’s Sea Triangle (Japan)
• Mount Fuji, Japan
• Maui, Hawaii
• Sedona, Arizona
• Lake Louise, Canada
• Findhorn, Scotland
• Kiev, Ukraine
• Bali, Indonesia
• Easter Island
• Angkor Wat, Cambodia
• Sarawak, Borneo
• Gabon (West Africa)
• Capetown, South Africa
• Lake Taupo, New Zealand

And there are probably many more!

Some scientists also believe that OM (Pronounced aa oo mm or AUM) creates resonance, and the opposite, MUA (mm oo aa) creates Nidhane or destruction, like the split sound of a water droplet. Thanks. Vishal Bakhai - Works 08:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Science?

I am interested in this area but after doing some quick research i am unsure how well established and accepted cymatics is within the wider scientific world. It is not linked to any other well known areas of study and therefor does not contextualise itself. Sites on the www which talk about it appear to be more spiritual and mystical than scientific, can anyone resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.101.82 (talk • contribs)

I have heard that clinical trials have, in fact, been run that show that cymatics has helped to restore people's natural healthy processes. I don't have references here, but maybe acutronics.com has something. Certainly there's a large body of annecdotal evidence to back holistic cymatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.240.110 (talk • contribs)

As the first poster in this section has pointed out, there is a lot of mysticism and spurious claims regarding cymatics. It is NOT a science, it has no real application, and the 2nd poster (above) has even stated that he/she has NO references. Anecdotal evidence is NOT evidence. It's anecdote.80.229.20.182 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Cymatics in of itself seems to be the innocent observation of acoustic effects on physical objects. Many of these are visually compelling, and could be the source for any number of worthy art projects, but there seems to be a push towards theraputic uses. Any links I have found about cymatics on the web reference pure pseudoscience (ie 432hz is more "natural" than 440hz etc). There is no peer reviewed work supporting it, any claims it makes are at best non-sequitur, while the language and references it makes, seem totally oblivious to basic acoustic theory. More concerning is that there seems to be a healthy "natural remedy" conversation/business model aligned with it, (a classic sign of pseudoscience) and this Wikipedia entry may seem to be a promulgation/justification of cymatics as a consistent scientific theory/discipline (which it clearly is not). Summary: This article should clearly state that cymatic therapy is unproven, and scientifically baseless. --Oscarg (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2013

Here's your topic being used in science https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06675

Standing waves

This is a nice example of a standing wave. There is no magic here, no abrakadabra healing. Just physics, beautiful physics if I might say. :) Endimion17, 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot link

Linked from this article on Slashdot. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be interesting material for an "In Art" section NoahWH 07:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New Discoveries in Cymatics

From a brief perusal the external link for John Stuart Reid, he does not appear to be a scientist. Also, there are no citations for this section. The section appears to have been added by Jack Kassewitz, who is also mentioned in the section. I am a brand new at participating in Wikipedia, so apologies if I have misinterpreted this, but doesn't that qualify it as "original research"? Nervinjapan (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He is certainly an effective communicator, and there should be reference in the article to his work at https://cymascope.com. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Medical Aspects

The medical aspects of cymatics needs to be stated within this article. SierraEchoBravo (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The medical aspects are non-existent. I think that is statement enough until someone provides a suitable reference.80.229.20.182 (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC) GB

Without any sensible scientific basis, Cymatic therapy is developing into a new realm of pseudoscience and I'd think this deserves some attention here. See https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/cymatic-therapy

Article needs revision

I am curious as to why this article is more about the history of Cymatics than the topic itself, and reads much like a student essay. I also noticed it includes "text to follow soon". This article needs major help to get it up to standards. Astræa (talk) 06:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the article to improve these faults? Hyacinth (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Wikipedia claims to be neutral, but it isn't and here is an excellent example.

The bottom of this page suggests several relevant links, one of which is "Pseudoscience." (Or maybe that is an example of subtle cyber vandalism?)

In any event, that is a pretty harsh editorial decision. There are more than a few "science" articles on Wikipedia for which I would like to provide that link, but will refrain from doing so.

Of course, any text will have a non-neutral point of view or it wouldn't be worth reading! So I don't really fault Wikipedia for that- only for dishonestly claiming that neutrality is possible.

117.14.96.231 (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean it is not neutral because it is an internal link. Remember Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit." Hyacinth (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

What you have to understand is that the vibration of membranes has been studied for a long time and falls under acoustics, whereas "cymatics" is a new term that people have hopped on because they think these membrane standing wave patterns look cool and want to ascribe spiritual properties to simple things like resonance. It's nothing new. What IS new is the pseudoscience stuff and this appears to be the primary reason the term "cymatics" is becoming popular to describe old physics.71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

visible sound co vibration

There is typo: "visible sound co vibration" (co), but I'm not sure to what it should be changed. 'And'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenorb (talk • contribs) 15:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Healing Powers Bogus Citation

After doing a brief survey of medical literature (which I have now edited the article to include), there appears to be no evidence to back up the idea that "Cymatics" (standing waves) have any healing powers. In addition, the first citation in this section () leads to an extremely non-scholarly source (indeed, it seems to be an advertisement for an expensive con-artist), which I believe does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable, authoritative sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars DeltaF (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

References

"Other than select articles on the subject of low-amplitude high-frequency sound in bone fracture healing,[6] there no limited medical evidence of this phenomenon." The word "no" should be replaced by "is". As written, the sentence makes no sense, and its meaning is inverted by the error. Anorlunda (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Cymascope

The article really should say more about modern research into cymatics, especially that deriving from the cymascope of John Stuart Reid, which is not mentioned at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do you think this is "modern research"? It's not even science, just a sound visualizer, pretty patterns generated from sound data.71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It is research (check out the definition of that). I never said it was science! Brian Josephson (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been checking out JSR's web site and it looks as if he is more involved in communicating resarch than actually doing it, except that he developed his own cymascope. The article should refer to that and maybe link to his web page. It's not clear how that differs from existing cymascopes though. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Influence in Engineering and P. Chen article

The article makes no mention of "cymatics". I think people are finding articles for any research involving standing wave patterns and claiming they are successes of "cymatics" to ultimately legitimize it's pseudoscientific aspects. On the other hand, here is an actual scientific paper using the term: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23929. If anything, this paper should be discussed instead of P.Chen's. 71.65.244.201 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)