Author Topic: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound? (Read 2885 times)

zeljkok · « **Reply #25 on:** September 28, 2024, 20:51 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 27, 2024, 19:13

As Uncle Pete wrote Einstein believed that the laws of our universe should be simple. If it's too complex then it's wrong. He believed nature in its complexity is simple (E = mc²). That's why he hated Quantum Mechanics, it's too weird and complex.

I don't think Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics. He is widely considered one of its founding fathers; his notion of discrete units of energy (quanta) is one of its cornerstones. He just couldn't come to terms with concept of randomness as built-in feature of physical world ("God doesn't play dice"). But complex or not, like it or not, quantum mechanics is the most exact model human science has come up so far; every predictions that could be experimentally verified is 100% correct.

My view is that main pitfall of quantum mechanics is quest for elementary particle (which even led to things like string theory). Humans are obsessed with its own existence that apparently has absolute beginning (birth) and absolute end (death). So they try to model everything around them in same way; Earth had to have beginning and end, and if you walk far enough you are going to fall of its edge. There must be elementary particle; there must be maximum speed (light). Etc. Once thinking shifts away from linear start/end model, many more deeper insights will be possible.

WendyT · « **Reply #26 on:** September 29, 2024, 19:16 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on September 22, 2024, 11:48

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" is a philosophical thought experiment that raises questions regarding observation and perception.
________

I don't know what different philosophers have come up with, but when I was recently walking through the forest and a huge birch tree was falling on me, I clearly heard the loud sound of it falling. It was thanks to this sound that I was able to accidentally escape from the area where the tree was falling. After which, behind me, I heard a loud dull sound of a fallen tree hitting the ground.
If I hadn't heard the sound of a falling tree, this tree would have fallen on me and I wouldn't be writing this post here.

Sound is just a concept, without a mechanical means to interpret the vibration then no sound would be "heard", by extrapolating that, if no sound can be "heard" then no sound is "made". There may be vibration in the earth and air, but if no mechanical device is able to receive that vibration and then translate it to something the brain perceives as sound then it is not sound.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 30, 2024, 04:21 »

I disagree. Even if a person had no ears and did not hear sounds, this does not mean that sounds do not exist. There are devices that can hear sounds. This is called the study of nature, the universe.
Science has been looking for other planets, life on other planets, aliens for many years. And scientists know that they lack certain equipment, and this equipment is produced. It cannot be said that by producing new equipment, we create some new physical phenomena that this equipment can detect. These physical phenomena existed before the advent of new equipment.
In my case, I have ears (equipment), which confirmed the fact that when a tree falls, it makes a sound.

If you personally do not see or hear something, it does not mean that it does not exist. Although for you personally, as one person, it may be so. You as one person can create for yourself a small universe consisting of one bed placed in a hospital ward.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #28 on:** October 01, 2024, 10:38 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on September 27, 2024, 11:40

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2024, 11:09
The speed of sound = 343 meters / second, the speed of a 7.62 NATO round = 641.3 m/s. The bullet will get to you nearly twice as fast as the sound. And I can tell you from personal experience, I have seen the hole appear, where a bullet hit, right above me, right before I heard the snap of the bullet going through the air. You don't hear the bullet that kills you.
The speed of a bullet doesn't matter. Even if it's faster than the speed of sound, you'll still hear a bullet flying past your ear. The question isn't whether the bullet will hit you or not. The sound of a bullet flying past is audible.
Maybe different people will hear this sound at different times, even if they're standing next to it. Maybe it depends on the development of their reflexes and hearing aid.
I never wrote that you can hear the sound of a bullet and escape from it.

I think that when they shot Trump, he heard the sound of a bullet flying past and hid from other bullets in time.
I'm sure that if Trump becomes president of the United States, an investigation will be conducted into this assassination attempt and those who ordered it will be named. I won't spoil it any further. Everyone already knows who benefited from Trump's murder.

No you don't hear the bullet because you are dead, before you hear it. Same as if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it, there is no sound, because sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

But that's OK, I know you have your opinion and your mind is made up, in spite of facts, definitions, logic, science and everything else.

Sound refers to the sensation produced by stimulation of the organs of hearing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #29 on:** October 01, 2024, 10:49 »

Quote from: zeljkok on September 28, 2024, 20:51

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 27, 2024, 19:13

As Uncle Pete wrote Einstein believed that the laws of our universe should be simple. If it's too complex then it's wrong. He believed nature in its complexity is simple (E = mc²). That's why he hated Quantum Mechanics, it's too weird and complex.

I don't think Einstein hated Quantum Mechanics. He is widely considered one of its founding fathers; his notion of discrete units of energy (quanta) is one of its cornerstones. He just couldn't come to terms with concept of randomness as built-in feature of physical world ("God doesn't play dice"). But complex or not, like it or not, quantum mechanics is the most exact model human science has come up so far; every predictions that could be experimentally verified is 100% correct.

My view is that main pitfall of quantum mechanics is quest for elementary particle (which even led to things like string theory). Humans are obsessed with its own existence that apparently has absolute beginning (birth) and absolute end (death). So they try to model everything around them in same way; Earth had to have beginning and end, and if you walk far enough you are going to fall of its edge. There must be elementary particle; there must be maximum speed (light). Etc. Once thinking shifts away from linear start/end model, many more deeper insights will be possible.

Thank You, that's it. Einstein wanted things to be orderly and mathematical, and felt something random, was a conflict. He might still be right?

By the way, the 1% of the speed of light, which is the speed of an electron, is 6,710,808.88 miles/hour which is pretty fast.

A mere 6.7 million miles per hour.

For the hypothetical particle communication that's faster than the speed of light, there's some complicated physics to that possibility. Even if that communication was at the speed of particles, it's far from the speed of light, which is 670,616,629 miles / hour

stoker2014 · « **Reply #30 on:** October 01, 2024, 11:21 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:38

sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #31 on:** October 01, 2024, 11:39 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 01, 2024, 11:21

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:38
sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Yes, that's another definition.

In which case the answer to the original question would be dependent on "how do you define sound?" before anyone can answer.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 01, 2024, 12:15 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 11:39

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 01, 2024, 11:21
Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:38
sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Yes, that's another definition.

In which case the answer to the original question would be dependent on "how do you define sound?" before anyone can answer.

I define sound with a device called the EAR!
But physicists have many other devices that can hear the sound of a falling tree from many miles away.
This means that when a tree falls, it makes a sound. This has been proven by me and proven by other physical devices.

WendyT · « **Reply #33 on:** October 01, 2024, 20:06 »

You have again ascertained that the sound can only be interpreted by another mechanism. So if there is no mechanism then the sound is just waves in the ether. It is only "sound" because our body takes the vibration from the waves, these then react on the auditory bones that then send a signal to the brain that interprets it as "sound". Another mechanical device will mimic this. A deaf person does not hear "sound", they feel "vibration". So sound is just a concept created in a hearing persons brain.

zeljkok · « **Reply #34 on:** October 02, 2024, 00:46 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:49

For the hypothetical particle communication that's faster than the speed of light, there's some complicated physics to that possibility. Even if that communication was at the speed of particles, it's far from the speed of light, which is 670,616,629 miles / hour

You still don't understand. First, it is not "hypothetical" - it has been experimentally proven. Second, it has nothing to do with speed. It is instant, and invariant of distance. Google it, places like scientific american will explain much better than I can. For instance: https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement

Key paragraph, quote:

Quote

"It may be tempting to think that the particles are somehow communicating with each other across these great distances, but that is not the case," says Thomas Vidick, a professor of computing and mathematical sciences at Caltech. "There can be correlation without communication," and the particles "can be thought of as one object."

stoker2014 · « **Reply #35 on:** October 02, 2024, 02:11 »

Quote from: WendyT on October 01, 2024, 20:06

You have again ascertained that the sound can only be interpreted by another mechanism. So if there is no mechanism then the sound is just waves in the ether. It is only "sound" because our body takes the vibration from the waves, these then react on the auditory bones that then send a signal to the brain that interprets it as "sound". Another mechanical device will mimic this. A deaf person does not hear "sound", they feel "vibration". So sound is just a concept created in a hearing persons brain.

You are speculating with concepts. Of course, physicists operate not with the concept of sound, but with the concept of wave. This does not change anything. Wave and sound are the same thing.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #36 on:** October 02, 2024, 10:28 »

Quote from: zeljkok on October 02, 2024, 00:46

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:49

For the hypothetical particle communication that's faster than the speed of light, there's some complicated physics to that possibility. Even if that communication was at the speed of particles, it's far from the speed of light, which is 670,616,629 miles / hour

You still don't understand. First, it is not "hypothetical" - it has been experimentally proven. Second, it has nothing to do with speed. It is instant, and invariant of distance. Google it, places like scientific american will explain much better than I can. For instance: https://scienceexchange.caltech.edu/topics/quantum-science-explained/entanglement

Key paragraph, quote:

Quote
"It may be tempting to think that the particles are somehow communicating with each other across these great distances, but that is not the case," says Thomas Vidick, a professor of computing and mathematical sciences at Caltech. "There can be correlation without communication," and the particles "can be thought of as one object."

Interesting theory:

"However, all interpretations agree that entanglement produces correlation between the measurements, and that the mutual information between the entangled particles can be exploited, but that any transmission of information at faster-than-light speeds is impossible. Thus, despite popular thought to the contrary, quantum entanglement cannot be used for faster-than-light communication."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/01/02/no-we-still-cant-use-quantum-entanglement-to-communicate-faster-than-light/

No, We Still Can't Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than Light

Interesting thoughts.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #37 on:** October 02, 2024, 10:34 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 01, 2024, 12:15

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 11:39
Quote from: stoker2014 on October 01, 2024, 11:21
Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:38
sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

Yes, that's another definition.

In which case the answer to the original question would be dependent on "how do you define sound?" before anyone can answer.

I define sound with a device called the EAR!
But physicists have many other devices that can hear the sound of a falling tree from many miles away.
This means that when a tree falls, it makes a sound. This has been proven by me and proven by other physical devices.

You need to make up your mind. If you use the definition that hearing is necessary, for sound, meaning a auditory system and a brain of an animal, then there is no sound, if a tree falls and no one is there to hear it.

If you want to use your other version, that sound is waves and not perception, then fine, stick to that one. In which case there's a sound, but no one has heard it.

Please stop flipping back and forth and mixing them. One or the other.

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 01, 2024, 11:21

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 01, 2024, 10:38
sound is defined as an auditory experience, not as waves.

In physics, sound is a vibration that propagates as an acoustic wave through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound

acoustic wave(1) is fine, if that's your definition. Mine is an auditory experience(2) so they are each correct, if one selects either definition, they are using that one, but you can't use both at the same time, because the second, eliminates the first. Or the first denies that the second is necessary.

zeljkok · « **Reply #38 on:** October 02, 2024, 13:45 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 02, 2024, 10:28

No, We Still Can't Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than Light

Interesting thoughts.

No, of course not - right now. But quantum entanglement could be next frontier. Notion that 2 separate entities on quantum level are "joined on the hip" so that change on one is automatically reflected across arbitrary distance on the other is mind boggling. Our entire science is based on hard limit that says information required to measure an event can not travel faster than light. In cosmology terms this is extremely limiting considering the size of the universe. There must be something more, but at our current stage we are not able to comprehend it. Could you explain to cave men something as simple as night/day change being consequence of Earth rotation around its axis? Communication or moving through what we call space via other means could be analogue, but too advanced for our current level.

I only believe there are no hard limits in anything. We are inventing them because we are modelling outside world based on our own existence that says everything must have start (birth) and end (death). So Universe starts with Big Bang / ends in Big Crunch. But if you follow current developments they are already saying something is wrong with estimated Age of Universe (Big Bang). There is reason why two main pillars of physics (Einstein Relativity and Quantum Mechanics) are not compatible during Inflation period right after Big Bang. It is indication that absolute beginning is essentially wrong, but deeper insight is impossible at our current level.

Big Toe · « **Reply #39 on:** October 02, 2024, 16:49 »

Quote from: zeljkok on October 02, 2024, 13:45

Quote from: Uncle Pete on October 02, 2024, 10:28

No, We Still Can't Use Quantum Entanglement To Communicate Faster Than Light

Interesting thoughts.

No, of course not - right now. But quantum entanglement could be next frontier. Notion that 2 separate entities on quantum level are "joined on the hip" so that change on one is automatically reflected across arbitrary distance on the other is mind boggling.

You cannot do that, though. If you change the quantum state of one entity, the entanglement is broken.

You can only do an experiment to find out the quantum state and then have information about the quantum state of the other entity. But the the experiment does not determine the state, it just finds out about it. Imho entanglement is therefor a misnomer.

It is comparable to having two people go on voyage to different places with a box containing a ring each. One ring has a ruby, the other a sapphire. When one person opens the box and finds a ring with a ruby, they know that the other person must have the ring with a sapphire. They cannot use this knowledge to transmit any information, though. If they change the stone in their ring, the stone in the other ring does not change.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #40 on:** October 02, 2024, 16:56 »

Uncle Pete, I don't see any contradictions in my texts and answers.

zeljkok · « **Reply #41 on:** October 02, 2024, 17:42 »

Quote from: Big Toe on October 02, 2024, 16:49

It is comparable to having two people go on voyage to different places with a box containing a ring each. One ring has a ruby, the other a sapphire. When one person opens the box and finds a ring with a ruby, they know that the other person must have the ring with a sapphire. They cannot use this knowledge to transmit any information, though. If they change the stone in their ring, the stone in the other ring does not change.

This is interesting analogy. But isn't this already transmission of information? "Ring Sapphire State" has been communicated to "Ruby Ring Person" when he opened his box; instantly across arbitrary distance. He did not have this information, and now he has it. In standard model person A would have to phone (or whatever) person B in order to find out, which is communication subject to limits of classic physics.

Big Toe · « **Reply #42 on:** October 02, 2024, 18:04 »

Quote from: zeljkok on October 02, 2024, 17:42

Quote from: Big Toe on October 02, 2024, 16:49

It is comparable to having two people go on voyage to different places with a box containing a ring each. One ring has a ruby, the other a sapphire. When one person opens the box and finds a ring with a ruby, they know that the other person must have the ring with a sapphire. They cannot use this knowledge to transmit any information, though. If they change the stone in their ring, the stone in the other ring does not change.

This is interesting analogy. But isn't this already transmission of information? "Ring Sapphire State" has been communicated to "Ruby Ring Person" when he opened his box; instantly across arbitrary distance.

No, not really, because they do not receive the information about the other ring from the other ring, but from opening their own box and finding their own ring.

Let's say the other ring has since been destroyed. Then the person with the ruby would still find a ring with a ruby in their box. And they would still know that the other person set out with a sapphire, even though they are not aware of it's destruction. So the knowledge they gain from opening the box is not affected by the other ring, but based solely on the knowledge that there were two different rings at the start and finding out about their own ring.

And, of course, if the person with the ruby opens their box, they know that the other person has the sapphire (or at least started the journey with it), but the person with the sapphire is still in the dark, until they open their box themselves, because there is no information transfered.

zeljkok · « **Reply #43 on:** October 03, 2024, 01:21 »

Quote from: Big Toe on October 02, 2024, 18:04

No, not really, because they do not receive the information about the other ring from the other ring, but from opening their own box and finding their own ring.

Let's say the other ring has since been destroyed. Then the person with the ruby would still find a ring with a ruby in their box. And they would still know that the other person set out with a sapphire, even though they are not aware of it's destruction. So the knowledge they gain from opening the box is not affected by the other ring, but based solely on the knowledge that there were two different rings at the start and finding out about their own ring.

And, of course, if the person with the ruby opens their box, they know that the other person has the sapphire (or at least started the journey with it), but the person with the sapphire is still in the dark, until they open their box themselves, because there is no information transfered.

It depends on semantics. To move away from diamonds and rings, here's quote from Wikipedia article I found:

Quote

For example, if a pair of entangled particles is generated such that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a first axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, is found to be anticlockwise.

If these 2 particles were not entangled and you knew only about existence of Particle B but nothing else, measuring clockwise spin on Particle A would tell you nothing about spin of Particle B. In my view this is flow of information based on initial state (entanglement). Further quote from that article:

Quote

Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, top quarks, molecules and even small diamonds. The use of entanglement in communication, computation and quantum radar is an active area of research and development.

I was unaware about small diamonds (doesn't say just how small). But according to above entanglement can be used in communication, and this is active R&D area. I honestly believe this could be the next big frontier.

Full wiki article I was referring to if someone is interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

stoker2014 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 03, 2024, 02:21 »

So telepathy and telekenesis are reality!

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #45 on:** October 03, 2024, 12:26 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 03, 2024, 02:21

So telepathy and telekenesis are reality!

Theory is not reality, which means, the theory of entanglement doesn't make anything else a truth.

On the other hand, trying to prove that something that doesn't exist, actually exists, like telepathy or telekenesis, are lifelong futile efforts. Someone might believe that some pseudoscience is real, but the facts don't support the belief. All that repeatable, confirmed and evidence kind of details that are needed for proof of a theory..

Quote from: stoker2014 on October 02, 2024, 16:56

Uncle Pete, I don't see any contradictions in my texts and answers.

Depending on which definition you or I would choose, it can't be both. If there needs to be a human perception to have sound, then the machine, isn't hearing sound. If the machine physics is sound, then the human perception definition, doesn't exist, as it is unnecessary.

Either can be correct, depending on which someone chooses, but both can't be correct, because one makes the other invalid.

Did I say contradiction? Only if you claimed one in one case and then flipped over to the other in another. Pick only one, not both.

Do you want a chocolate fudge brownie or a chocolate chip cookie? They are both chocolate and a baked treat, but one is not the other. Besides... you only get one. I get the other one.

In an alternate reply:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound?

What is sound?

The answer to the query is impossible if there's no agreement as to the definition of SOUND.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound? (Read 2885 times)

zeljkok

WendyT

stoker2014

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

stoker2014

Uncle Pete

stoker2014

WendyT

zeljkok

stoker2014

Uncle Pete

Uncle Pete

zeljkok

Big Toe

stoker2014

zeljkok

Big Toe

zeljkok

stoker2014

Uncle Pete

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors