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.

vacuum? althout if you could build a sensitive enough detector you might pick up noise from random pair production.

I basically meant, actually no noise, so asume you can pick up any noise.

By definition a noise must be caused by a sound wave. I sound wave can only exist if there is matter to carry it.

Scilence ?

Scilence ?

 

It's the marriage of science and sound, not to be confused with silence.

 

I am of course joking.

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.

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.

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".

Which film was it where the moto was "no one can hear you scream in space"?

 

Alien.

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

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 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".

Cut off your ears... silence.

Nope, just impaired source location.

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.

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?

 

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

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.

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?

Ah, you get my drift. But can you clap with one hand?

Yes, if you lend me the side of your head.

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!

In both statements you display your impecable scientific credentials

I hear what you say ... cheers man

This is why snowfall is so beautiful. Also, sailing in wind. Here, I watch hang-gliders.