|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a tree falls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound? Since there's no medium to transport the vibrations of the object, there's no sound. No air, no vibrations, no sound.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
If it is happening that way, then my next question is, does that sound exist? And if it does, does it exist without the sound waves? It just depends on how you're using the word "sound" here. There's no oscillatory vibrations in your brain like those in air. The brain's a different kind of beast. Look at it this way. There's lots of ways to hear things. They all involve some activation of auditory parts of your brain. The most common way is for a sound to interact with your ear, which (as Yaro described previously in this thread) goes through some neural processing and eventually activates auditory regions of your brain. But like I said before in response to Yaro, you can activate the auditory parts of your brain through other means--auditory imagery (thinking about sounds), electrical stimulation (using some electric devices to stimulate the brain, and things like epileptic siezures. There are lots of ways to have the conscious sensation of hearing something. Not sure if that answers your question. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6522 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
AH!, but what if you drop the symbol, and your brain imagines there is a sound! ... ooo boy...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Oh, it happens all the time. We fool ourselves with our expectations of what will happen. We hear things that never were there.
In fact, I think I read a paper that studied exactly this phenomenon--the "sound" of a silent video of hammering. There was a clear change in auditory activation. Good thinking Yaro.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
I guess in other words, we just really don't know yet. We are only starting to know.
But it clearly defines the difference bewteen hearing a sound, and an actual sound wave. I wonder if you could ever imagine a sound, without ever actually hearing one before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Ben responds to me:
quote:quote: Yes and no. I had assumed some understanding of music theory upon the part of anybody following along. A above middle C is defined as the tone having precisely 440 Hz. It wasn't always defined as such. It varied between 400 and 450 Hz during the 18th and 19th centuries. Setting A above middle C to 440 Hz was suggested in 1939 and was adopted by the ISO in 1955 (it is ISO standard 16.) In the chromatic, diatonic scale, the rest of the notes are defined off of the definition of A above middle C, but there are different methodologies to do so. Equal temperament divides the octave range into 12 equal intervals. There's also meantone temperament and well temperament (used for J.S. Bach's "The Well Tempered Clavier"). However, it doesn't really matter how C is defined so long as it is. Even without any actual sound to listen to, a major chord is the root plus major-third plus minor-third. The minor chord reduces the middle tone by a half-step and thus flipping the intervals between notes: root plus minor-third plus major-third. While "C" may be considered perceptual (though there are methods to define it physically), major and minor chords are defined theoretically.
quote:quote: Excuse me? You mean all my chemistry and physics texts that define red as such are in some sort of error?
quote: Ah, but here's the thing: Most every human defines "red" to be the exact same wavelength. If you take a color chip set that has representative samples of most every shade of red imaginable and put them to someone who speaks a language that has a color term for "red" (not all languages do) and ask him to pick out the one that most typifies the color "red," the same chip gets picked by most everyone.
quote: Yes, but only in response to a physical phenomenon. The photon was red before there was a person to call it "red." One of the most interesting aspects of the development of language among humans is the fact that color terms fall into a fairly regimented pattern. Every langauge that has only two pure color terms has those terms being "black" and "white." If the language has three pure color terms, that third color is always "red." And remember, they all define "red" in the same way. Note, people who speak only a two-color language aren't incapable of seeing or talking about other colors. Instead, those other colors are defined in terms of objects much in the way English uses a reference to the stone turquoise to refer to that particular shade of pale, greenish blue, or by modifying other terms such as the way English refers to lighter shades of blue as "baby blue" or "powder blue" or "sky blue" as opposed to lighter shades of red having its own color term, "pink." After "red" comes either "yellow" or "green/blue" Five colors has if you had "yellow," you pick up "green/blue" and if you had "green/blue," you pick up "yellow." Six has "green" and "blue" splitting apart. After that, things get complicated.
quote: True, but we were reacting to a physical phenomenon: The photon was red before we called it "red."
quote: You should try again: Dictionary.com's definition of "red" uses the scientific one as the very first one:
1.a. The hue of the long-wave end of the visible spectrum, evoked in the human observer by radiant energy with wavelengths of approximately 630 to 750 nanometers; any of a group of colors that may vary in lightness and saturation and whose hue resembles that of blood; one of the additive or light primaries; one of the psychological primary hues. quote: But that's the thing, we all are going off of the same definition, across languages, across cultures. Around the world, everybody understands what "red" is. When asked to pick the most representative sample of what the color "red" is, all humans pick the same wavelength.
quote: But it's based on a physical pheonomenon and is triggered by the same wavelength to everyone. The photon was red before anybody was around to call it "red." The actual word used to describe it is irrelevant.
quote: True, but irrelevant. Color divisions are arbitrary, yes, but just because something is arbitrary doesn't mean it isn't real. We're back to the common creationist/fundamentalist fallacy that without god, there is no such thing as morality as if atheists would just as soon kill you as look at you. The rules of Monopoly are completely arbitrary and were made by humans and even change from game to game, but they are very real. Break them and you're cheating.
quote:quote: (*blink!*) You did not just say that, did you? There is no such thing as a photon? There is no such thing as a waveform? I made those terms up?
quote: Irrelevant. A photon and a waveform exist, do they not? A photon has a frequency, does it not? A waveform has a frequency, does it not? Why does it matter what scale we use to measure it?
quote: No, not really. There are only five receptors on the human tongue: Sweet, salt, sour, bitter, and umami. What makes them trigger is a physical structure that causes them to fit in the receptor. That's why artificial sweeteners work: They have a physical structure that allows the molecules to fit into the sweet receptor on the tongue. The rest of the molecule can be shaped differently than other "sweet" things so long as it has the appropriate shape somewhere along its morphology that is physically capable of fitting into the receptor. Smell is similar though with a much broader range of molecular shapes that can be detected. Compare this to photons or waveforms: There is only one. If the photon is of 700 nm, then it is 700 nm everywhere (and let's not get disingenuous about relativistic motion...assume an inertial reference frame.) A waveform of 440 Hz is A above middle C. You can't get another frequency to mimic 440 Hz while not being 440 Hz.
quote: If they are scientificially measurable, then they do exist.
quote: But you've got it backwards. The smell and taste receptors are reacting to a shape. That's why artificial odors and flavors work: They mimic the shape of the "real thing" without actually being it. Thus, rather than there being a discrete molecule that can be considered the odor or flavor, there are many.
quote: You don't know much about the artificial flavoring or perfume industries, do you? They have done exactly that. Walk into a perfume-makers shop and you will find the sample oils separated by odor classification. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
cavediver responds to me:
quote: Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks. And then, of course, there is the International Commission on Illumination (or CIE) which is the authority for defining color.
quote:quote: Ten meters? That's VHF. "Color" is a reference to the frequency/wavelength of light. Since every photon has a frequency/wavelength, then every photon has a color. Don't confuse the fact that we have not named every single wavelength with a unique color term to mean that it doesn't have a color. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 responds to me:
quote:quote: Yes, but the mental definition is irrelevant. Hallucinations and imaginations cause people to hear sounds that aren't there. The question isn't whether or not you hear a sound. The question is whether or not the TREE MAKES sound. Therefore, the only definition of "sound" that makes any sense is one that removes you from the equation since we're concerned about what the tree is doing, not you.
quote: Indeed. And the question is whether or not the tree made sound, not if the tree was heard. Hearing and sound are not the same thing.
quote: Who said anything about interpreting it? The question is whether or not the tree made any sound, not what kind of sound it made.
quote:quote: No, it doesn't. That's the entire point: Even if there is nobody there to see it, the sun still shines. In fact, the overwhelming majority of photons given off by the sun are never seen by anybody on earth. Are you claiming they don't exist? Those photons "require a mechanism to observe it" before they can exist?
quote: All sensory perception is that way. Are you wandering down the road to Cartesian Doubt?
quote: No, we don't. And don't be disingenuous and start quoting the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to me. It doesn't mean that. You aren't a subatomic particle interacting with another one. The sun emitted those photons that are entering your eye about 8 minutes ago. Your observation of them doesn't change anything about the sun. Sensory perception is a passive process: Stimuli comes to you, you don't get to go to it. Observation happens after the emission of stimulus, not before.
quote: Huh? What is "eminated [sic] electromagnetic radiation" if not the definition of "shine"? Why are you playing these semantic games?
quote: No. It sounds like you want to play games rather than discuss the issue with sincerity. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
1.61803 responds to riVeRraT:
quote:quote: No, not at all. That's the entire point of the question: Is there sound if there is nobody there to hear it?
quote: Excuse me? Who said anything about hearing the sound? The question is not if you heard it. The question is if the tree made it. You aren't a part of the question. Did the TREE make any sound? How does your presence affect the tree's behaviour with regard to the motion of the air and the earth?
quote: Huh? Only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound"?
quote: Within the cymbal, yes. The cymbal is vibrating and sound, by definition, is the vibration of molecules. That sound won't travel anywhere outside the cymbal, however, because there is no medium for the sound to travel through in a vacuum.
quote: We're back to your seeming claim that only vibrations between 20 and 20,000 Hz are "sound."
quote: Yes, it does. It has everything to do with sound. Sound is a vibration of the medium. As such, there is a maximum speed the waveform can travel through that medium. That speed changes with respect to the makeup and temperature of the medium. The speed of sound near the surface of the earth is not the same as the speed of sound 30,000 feet above it.
quote: Huh? Sound is only sound if it is interesting to listen to? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
riVeRraT writes:
quote: Thus showing you didn't read what I wrote. I was talking about space, not the objects within space. Obviously if you set up a vibration within an object, there is sound within that object. However, that object is not space. What on earth do you think "There is no medium for the vibration to pass through" means? And while you are technically correct that space is not a perfect vacuum, it is the height of disingenuousness to claim that sound in space is akin to anything we might experience. The amount of energy required to set up a coherent waveform in interstellar medium is not trivial. Do you like playing games?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Since physics started studying the concept in depth. It's defined as such in all of my chemistry and physics textbooks. Well, not in any of mine, nor those that I have helped edit, nor have I ever taught any of my students such absurdity.
"Color" is a reference to the frequency/wavelength of light. No it is not. It is a meaningless concept outside of the visible range. Colour is neither a synomym for frequency nor wavelength. As an astrophysicist I never used nor heard use of nor saw written in any journal the word colour being used to describe any part of the elctromagnetic spectrum outside of the visible range. To do so would be utterly confusing. As a mathematical physicist I never used nor heard use of nor saw written in any journal the word colour being used to describe an attribute of a photon. To do so would be utterly confusing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2195 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Do this thought experiment: You are in a vacuum. I drop a large Cymbal in the room. Did it make a sound? quote: Are you sure? Remember, there's no air in a vacuum, thus no air molecules, thus...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3669 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Are you sure? Remember, there's no air in a vacuum, thus no air molecules, thus... Yes, of course it does... and no, it most definitely does not... What are we using to define sound? The cymbal obviosuly makes no vibrational air waves as there is no air. No sound. The cymbal itself will set up compression waves within its own structure by virtue of the collision with the floor. Sound. Forgive the use of Wikipedia but it serves a purpose here:
quote: Wiki on sound
quote: Wiki on sound
quote: Wiki on sound
quote: A dictionary of science to hand
quote: Oxford English
quote: Other dictionary So, Rrhain may have the final divine answer to "what is sound", but for the rest of us mortals, the word sound carries too many meanings to have any hard and fast definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1530 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
LOL.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1530 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Mr. Rrhain,
There are several theories in regards to reality: The Copenhagen interpretation #There is no deeper reality The Copenhagen interp # reality is created by observation The Quantum reality of undivided wholeness The quantum reality of many worlds quantum reality of neo realism Conciousness created reality quantum Duplex world Oh, and the Rrhain interpretation You emphatically state that observation does not affect reality. If this is correct then why is it everytime I observe one of your sarcastic post I feel the urge to pimp slap you? Just kiddn.:} "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024