the tree Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 Is true scilence possible? I don't think so as I think that it would mean nothing so moving there'd be no entropy which is practically impossible.
insane_alien Posted February 18, 2006 Posted February 18, 2006 vacuum? althout if you could build a sensitive enough detector you might pick up noise from random pair production.
the tree Posted February 18, 2006 Author Posted February 18, 2006 I basically meant, actually no noise, so asume you can pick up any noise.
5614 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 By definition a noise must be caused by a sound wave. I sound wave can only exist if there is matter to carry it.
Royston Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Scilence ? It's the marriage of science and sound, not to be confused with silence. I am of course joking.
silkworm Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Don't you need a medium for the wave to travel in. Like we hear on the surface because air functions as the fluid medium and sound travels faster in water because it's more dense than air. What I'm trying to get to, I don't think you can hear things in space.
gcol Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Don't you need a medium for the wave to travel in. Like we hear on the surface because air functions as the fluid medium and sound travels faster in water because it's more dense than air. What I'm trying to get to' date=' I don't think you can hear things in space.[/quote'] Define "space". If a region of space has a sufficient density of matter, then why not? If you say that a sufficient density means it is not space, you still require a further refinement of its definition. "space" is used rather carelessly, and causes unecessary arguments.
5614 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Sound does need a carrying medium, that's what I was saying. Which film was it where the moto was "no one can hear you scream in space"? Whatever movie it was it is true. As the few particles in space do move randomly there is theoretically a possibility that enough atoms will accumulate in one spot thus allowing sound to be carried through it. But I'd still say "sound doesn't travel in space".
Royston Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Which film was it where the moto was "no one can hear you scream in space"? Alien.
YT2095 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 there`s no way of Detecting/Observing total silence, no. it again is an Absolute, and as we know Absolutes are largely unattainable and certainly unobservable. or at least I can`t think of any
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Not only does sound require a medium, it also requires a detector. Anything you use to detect sound is going to produce some sound as well, whether it's a microphone or the human ear.
gcol Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Not only does sound require a medium, it also requires a detector. Anything you use to detect sound is going to produce some sound as well, whether it's a microphone or the human ear. Just to be awkward, then, 1.sound does not exist until detected by an observer? i.e. it is the detector that creates sound. (that reminds me of certain statements relative to quantum mechanics). 2. Buck Rogers' space ship was hit by a rock. The old ship clanged and rang like a bell. "Hell, " said a crewman, "did you hear that?" "I heard nothing" said Buck, "because there is no sound in space".
5614 Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 1.sound does not exist until detected by an observer? i.e. it is the detector that creates[/i'] sound. (that reminds me of certain statements relative to quantum mechanics). No that is not correct, nor is it a correct interpretation of superposition (the "statement" of QM you referred to). 2. Buck Rogers' space ship was hit by a rock. The old ship clanged and rang like a bell. "Hell, " said a crewman, "did you hear that?" "I heard nothing" said Buck, "because there is no sound in space". That is also incorrect. Within the ship there is a gas, normally includes oxygen so that the crew can breathe. This air will carry the sound.
ecoli Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Not only does sound require a medium, it also requires a detector. Anything you use to detect sound is going to produce some sound as well, whether it's a microphone or the human ear. not only that, but the detector could also be the medium that the wave could travel in... when you put something into a vacuum, it isn't realyl a vacuum any more. correct?
gcol Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 That is also incorrect. Within the ship there is a gas' date=' normally includes oxygen so that the crew can breathe. This air will carry the sound.[/quote'] In both statements you display your impecable scientific credentials
Phi for All Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 1.sound does not exist until detected by an observer? i.e. it is the detector that creates[/i'] sound. (that reminds me of certain statements relative to quantum mechanics). The detector doesn't create the sound, but there isn't a detector I know of that won't have some type of sound accompanying it (microphone vibration, electric hum, blood pumping near the eardrum, etc.). Whether the tree makes a sound when it falls in a forest bereft of those capable of hearing it, well, that's another thread. 2. Buck Rogers' space ship was hit by a rock. The old ship clanged and rang like a bell. "Hell, " said a crewman, "did you hear that?" "I heard nothing" said Buck, "because there is no sound in space". If Buck had been outside the ship he wouldn't have heard it. If the rock would've hit his helmet he would hear it because the helmet is full of oxygen.Cut off your ears... silence. As Glider points out, the outer part of the ear is for focus. You could still hear without the flappy parts.
gcol Posted February 20, 2006 Posted February 20, 2006 Whether the tree makes a sound when it falls in a forest bereft of those capable of hearing it' date=' well, that's another thread. [/quote'] Ah, you get my drift. But can you clap with one hand?
Phi for All Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Ah, you get my drift. But can you clap with one hand?Yes, if you lend me the side of your head.
YT2095 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 Just to be awkward' date=' then, 1.sound does not exist until detected by an observer? i.e. it is the detector that [i']creates[/i] sound. (that reminds me of certain statements relative to quantum mechanics). 2. Buck Rogers' space ship was hit by a rock. The old ship clanged and rang like a bell. "Hell, " said a crewman, "did you hear that?" "I heard nothing" said Buck, "because there is no sound in space". 1. there is no answer to this beyond "we beleive so", but yes the detector itself unless in complete stasis would make sounds (perhaps imperceptible, but sound non the less), the problem comes is that IF the detector WAS in complete stasis, it wouldn`t work (thermodynamic rules). 2. for that statement to be true "buck" would have to have been Outside the craft OR telling lies!
5614 Posted February 21, 2006 Posted February 21, 2006 In both statements you display your impecable scientific credentials I hear what you say ... cheers man
Norman Albers Posted February 25, 2006 Posted February 25, 2006 This is why snowfall is so beautiful. Also, sailing in wind. Here, I watch hang-gliders.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now