Author Topic: If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make sound? (Read 1753 times)

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.

Pacesetter · « **Reply #1 on:** September 22, 2024, 17:47 »

Good to hear you're safe from that potentially harmful incident.

When I read 'If a tree falls...' it reminds me of the 1988 song by Bruce Cockburn.

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #2 on:** September 22, 2024, 23:32 »

Now the REAL question people want to know the answer to is...

If a squirrel is eating a nut by a tree and no one is around to hear him eating it, did he really have a good meal? Or is he just nuts?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #3 on:** September 23, 2024, 02:59 »

I don’t know about squirrels, but the example with the tree really excited the minds of various philosophers and physicists.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #4 on:** September 23, 2024, 03:04 »

Quote from: Pacesetter on September 22, 2024, 17:47

Good to hear you're safe from that potentially harmful incident.

When I read 'If a tree falls...' it reminds me of the 1988 song by Bruce Cockburn.

And he also used this question in his song.

As a participant in the experiment, I declare that when a tree falls, the sound is very loud and can be heard very well!
There is only one problem, it is not clear which tree is falling and where it will fall. You can run in the direction of the fall and then the tree will fall on your head. Be in the tree fall zone is equivalent to playing Russian roulette!

Shuttershock · « **Reply #5 on:** September 23, 2024, 05:06 »

If I fart next to someone, I always say I didn't hear anything.....

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #6 on:** September 23, 2024, 09:39 »

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.

If the tree falls and hits you, but doesn't kill you, there was a sound. If it kills you instantly, there's no sound.

(as in you don't hear the bullet that kills you, either)

The real answer: objects of sense exist only when they are perceived, which is more physical and physiology or by definition, than philosophy.

Yes, I'm writing this because I wasn't killed by a mudslide, which happened right after I had traversed the slope of a hill, (taking photos to document mudslides) minutes before.

But since you asked about philosophy, people who don't wear seat belts, are only here by chance and luck, the other people who didn't, are dead, so the later can't write on the forum. If you asked everyone who was lucky, the ones who gambled and lost, aren't available to balance the answer to the question.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #7 on:** September 23, 2024, 14:47 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 23, 2024, 09:39

If the tree falls and hits you, but doesn't kill you, there was a sound. If it kills you instantly, there's no sound. (as in you don't hear the bullet that kills you, either)

A falling tree cannot kill instantly. Before it can kill, it must fall on you, and this takes several seconds. I was not alone, and another person also heard the sound of a falling tree. If the tree had killed me, then the other person would have confirmed that there was a sound of a falling tree. We must also separate the two sounds. The first sound is the sound of a falling tree. The second sound is the sound of a tree falling to the ground. These are different sounds. In this case, two participants in the experiment claim to have heard two different sounds at different times.
As for bullets, they whistle, and there are many witnesses to this fact.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #8 on:** September 23, 2024, 14:52 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 23, 2024, 09:39

Yes, I'm writing this because I wasn't killed by a mudslide, which happened right after I had traversed the slope of a hill, (taking photos to document mudslides) minutes before.

But since you asked about philosophy, people who don't wear seat belts, are only here by chance and luck, the other people who didn't, are dead, so the later can't write on the forum. If you asked everyone who was lucky, the ones who gambled and lost, aren't available to balance the answer to the question.

I don't know if the mudslide makes a sound. Perhaps you, as a witness, know this.
As for seat belts in a car, it should be clarified that this car should also be equipped with airbags. Yes, I wear a seat belt, but my cars do not have airbags. So in the event of an accident, it makes little difference whether the seat belt is fastened or not.

zeljkok · « **Reply #9 on:** September 23, 2024, 17:41 »

Schrodinger's Cat

stoker2014 · « **Reply #10 on:** September 24, 2024, 05:29 »

Quote from: zeljkok on September 23, 2024, 17:41

Schrodinger's Cat

I am sure that the sound of a falling tree has nothing to do with all this science fiction. And in vain do philosophers and scientists cite a tree as an example.
As a witness, I claim that the sound of a falling tree exists!
And I will note that I did not observe this tree, I did not even see it until it fell and I initially thought that it was a large branch falling.

zeljkok · « **Reply #11 on:** September 24, 2024, 13:45 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on September 24, 2024, 05:29

I am sure that the sound of a falling tree has nothing to do with all this science fiction.

Schrodinger's Cat is not sci-fi. It is well known thought experiment named by physicist Erwin Schrödinger in 1935 in a discussion with Albert Einstein and one of cornerstones of quantum mechanics. It deals with measurement paradox which can loosely be linked with title of this thread.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #12 on:** September 25, 2024, 02:20 »

Yes, that's why I created this topic.
And as I already wrote, I don't agree with scientists!

My practical experience against the scientific fantasies of scientists!

Cider Apple · « **Reply #13 on:** September 26, 2024, 16:53 »

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

You were around to hear it. I think the thought experiment is if nobody is around does it make a sound at all? Something we will probably never know. It sort of relates to us all living in a simulation. The simulation doesn't need to render things when it's not being observed like the sound of the tree. When our consciousness is witness then the simulation needs to function normally (if that makes sense).

SuperPhoto · « **Reply #14 on:** September 26, 2024, 21:18 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 26, 2024, 16:53

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

You were around to hear it. I think the thought experiment is if nobody is around does it make a sound at all? Something we will probably never know. It sort of relates to us all living in a simulation. The simulation doesn't need to render things when it's not being observed like the sound of the tree. When our consciousness is witness then the simulation needs to function normally (if that makes sense).

It's interesting - I've heard the simulation theory (I think with a tweet via elon musks account 3-4 years ago)... if it is/was a simulation - it is quite a simulation. I don't quite 'believe' it is (because there are a few inconsistencies that don't seem to be viable to be an actual simulation)... but - given how insane it was and how much insanity/people acted over the last 3-4 years, I realize perhaps I need to consider that as a possibility. Do you have more details on that you could send me (either here or via a PM). Thanks!

zeljkok · « **Reply #15 on:** September 27, 2024, 00:53 »

There is lots of discussion on topic of observation/measurement of various phenomena, not just casual (i.e. on Forum like this one), but between theoretical physicists.

Latest mind blowing thing is something called "quantum entanglement" - changes induced on one particle can be measured on second particle that can be arbitrary distance away. There are already theories how this will at some point be used for instant communication across light years, thus bypassing Einstein barrier where nothing can travel faster than speed of light. This concept has been used very effectively in "There Body Problem" Netflix series, in form of quantum entangled supercomputers called "sophons" (Sophons are of course pure sci-fi, but quantum entanglement is not - it is experimentally verified science fact).

stoker2014 · « **Reply #16 on:** September 27, 2024, 02:22 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 26, 2024, 16:53

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

You were around to hear it. I think the thought experiment is if nobody is around does it make a sound at all? Something we will probably never know. It sort of relates to us all living in a simulation. The simulation doesn't need to render things when it's not being observed like the sound of the tree. When our consciousness is witness then the simulation needs to function normally (if that makes sense).

Oh yeah! We all live in the matrix!
You probably believed everything that was shown to you in the movie The Matrix.

Uncle Pete · « **Reply #17 on:** September 27, 2024, 11:09 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 26, 2024, 16:53

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

You were around to hear it. I think the thought experiment is if nobody is around does it make a sound at all? Something we will probably never know. It sort of relates to us all living in a simulation. The simulation doesn't need to render things when it's not being observed like the sound of the tree. When our consciousness is witness then the simulation needs to function normally (if that makes sense).

The point of the original question, not the one here, is that sound is defined as a perception, the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing, so if no living things is present, there is no sound. If someone defines sound as waves of air motion, then there is. It's just a nice little logic puzzle.

Since I'm writing, it appears that @stoker2014 enjoys throwing out answers that are wrong and insisting he's right, because everyone else is wrong. This is not new, but I'm forced to try to give a reasonable scientific and rational answer once again.

You don't hear the bullet that kills you, is an old military saying. If you get shot, you don't hear the gun firing or the sonic crack of the bullet. (which except maybe a canon or musket, they do not whistle! what is that, something from a cartoon? Rocks falling don't usually whistle either.)

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. In movies, people do and duck. They also have something exploding and the hero dives to safety. Both are fantasy.

When Einstein said "God does not play with dice" he was referring to the theories of others that modern nuclear physics, theory, said the motion was random. In fact people like Bors and Heisenberg. Einstein didn't like the idea of random motion. He stuck with unified theory to the end, believing that there was a way to know how everything was related.

Quote from: zeljkok on September 27, 2024, 00:53

There is lots of discussion on topic of observation/measurement of various phenomena, not just casual (i.e. on Forum like this one), but between theoretical physicists.

Latest mind blowing thing is something called "quantum entanglement" - changes induced on one particle can be measured on second particle that can be arbitrary distance away. There are already theories how this will at some point be used for instant communication across light years, thus bypassing Einstein barrier where nothing can travel faster than speed of light. This concept has been used very effectively in "There Body Problem" Netflix series, in form of quantum entangled supercomputers called "sophons" (Sophons are of course pure sci-fi, but quantum entanglement is not - it is experimentally verified science fact).

So you are proposing that these reactions would travel faster than the speed of light, or maybe at the same speed. There would need to be measuring devices at both locations, that are synchronized to measure how fast the communication arrived. What about, the theory that, these would occur at the speed of light, not faster? LOL

Who's proposing that they would be faster, and why?

The speed of an electron is about 2,200 kilometers per second1. This is less than 1% of the speed of light

stoker2014 · « **Reply #18 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.

f8 · « **Reply #19 on:** September 27, 2024, 11:45 »

If a man says something in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?

stoker2014 · « **Reply #20 on:** September 27, 2024, 12:34 »

Quote from: f8 on September 27, 2024, 11:45

If a man says something in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?

From the point of view of female logic, yes, he is still wrong.

Cider Apple · « **Reply #21 on:** September 27, 2024, 19:13 »

Quote from: stoker2014 on September 27, 2024, 02:22

Quote from: Cider Apple on September 26, 2024, 16:53
"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

You were around to hear it. I think the thought experiment is if nobody is around does it make a sound at all? Something we will probably never know. It sort of relates to us all living in a simulation. The simulation doesn't need to render things when it's not being observed like the sound of the tree. When our consciousness is witness then the simulation needs to function normally (if that makes sense).
Oh yeah! We all live in the matrix!
You probably believed everything that was shown to you in the movie The Matrix.

Not at all. Although it was a mind-blowing movie for its time.

The simulation Hypothesis has intrigued me as there are so many similarities to many religious beliefs (i won't get into it now but think reincarnation, Divine Creation, Heaven/Hell).
Many scientists are also starting to explore the possibilities that we're not in base reality. 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. Take the Planck length, the smallest size in the universe is very similar to a pixel. Or the double-slit experiment, it demonstrates how particles change when observed. Scientists have proven that light that has traveled over thousands (maybe millions) of light years changed once we first observed it. Somehow that light had to be re-rolled back just because we looked at it. Like it wasn't rendered and suddenly needed to be. It's crazy. Too much to write on here but if you do a little research I'm sure you'd find it interesting.

I'm not saying we're in some crazy futuristic simulation, but I do find the thought interesting.

What happens if we find proof that we are in a simulation? What would our simulators do? Terminate the program? Just let the program continue on? Move our consciousness into another simulation. Run the program again? Ask us if we want to join them in their reality which might not even be the base reality but another simulation.

Just a fun thought experiment I find myself daydreaming. It kinda makes sense on how everything is so sped up and fast too. Like technology and just life in general. Anyway I'm waffling now.

zeljkok · « **Reply #22 on:** September 27, 2024, 22:57 »

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2024, 11:09

So you are proposing that these reactions would travel faster than the speed of light, or maybe at the same speed. There would need to be measuring devices at both locations, that are synchronized to measure how fast the communication arrived. What about, the theory that, these would occur at the speed of light, not faster? LOL Who's proposing that they would be faster, and why?

No, you missed the point. Change is instant. Not speed of this or that. INSTANT. And arbitrary distance. So you could have Unit A on Earth, and Unit B on Alpha Centauri or somewhere in Andromeda Galaxy for that matter. As soon you trigger change on Unit A, it is felt / measured on Unit B - as long as A and B are "entangled" This is mind boggling really. They have proven it by measuring electric charge on entangled electrons. Right now it works only with quantum particles; how to engineer, or even is it possible, macro entangled objects is something completely else. But lots of things we take for granted -from MRI / Cat scans to Microwave ovens started with similar experiments on quantum level.

stoker2014 · « **Reply #23 on:** September 28, 2024, 05:13 »

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

....
but think reincarnation, Divine Creation, Heaven/Hell.

When you find out, please let me know where I can sign up for all this? Where can I get in line?

cascoly · « **Reply #24 on:** September 28, 2024, 14:49 »

Quote from: zeljkok on September 27, 2024, 22:57

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 27, 2024, 11:09

So you are proposing that these reactions would travel faster than the speed of light, or maybe at the same speed. There would need to be measuring devices at both locations, that are synchronized to measure how fast the communication arrived. What about, the theory that, these would occur at the speed of light, not faster? LOL Who's proposing that they would be faster, and why?

No, you missed the point. Change is instant. Not speed of this or that. INSTANT. And arbitrary distance. So you could have Unit A on Earth, and Unit B on Alpha Centauri or somewhere in Andromeda Galaxy for that matter. As soon you trigger change on Unit A, it is felt / measured on Unit B - as long as A and B are "entangled" This is mind boggling really. They have proven it by measuring electric charge on entangled electrons. Right now it works only with quantum particles; how to engineer, or even is it possible, macro entangled objects is something completely else. But lots of things we take for granted -from MRI / Cat scans to Microwave ovens started with similar experiments on quantum level.

yes, theoretical physics hasnt been this exciting since the advent of quantum theory 100 years ago. New Scientist seems to print new research every week on these topics.

sciFi makes these concepts digestible, but at the cost of accuracy, esp'ly for those who aren't up to date on the actual science - the sophron is a prime example - extrapolating quantum entanglement to the ultra-macro covering a distance of hundreds of light years

still 3 Body is a great read, along with Gibson's Agency / Peripheral novels (& TV series) and also Blindsight and the Tchaikovsky 'Children of ...' series about spacefaring civilizations of spiders & octopus

one of best books i've read recently is 'When We Cease to Understand the World ' -a novel about those involved in the birth of quantum theory

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 1753 times)

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors