Space Bandit wrote:
Cousin_Frothy wrote:
Space Bandit wrote:
Cousin_Frothy wrote:
oioioi wrote:
Ab Origine wrote:
Kind of like does a falling tree make a sound if there's nobody there to hear it?
No it doesn't.
It makes changes to it's surrounding by changing it's circumstances. An ear is required for that change to be interpreted as a sound.
I wonder if a new device was invented that could detect a slight sound, that had never before been detected, would that mean that the sound did not exist prior to the invention of the device, and does this also mean in effect the listening device is making the sound?
The human ear is so sensitive that in an anechoic chamber it can perceive air molecules bouncing off the ear drum.
It is impossible to hear any sounds quieter than that because they would be masked by this sensation. But since sound is essentially vibration of air molecules I can't think how any sound could be quieter because it would have to include the vibration of air molecules (or any other medium through which sound can travel.)
NASA has listening devices that can detect sound/vibration beyond human hearing.
What I'm getting at is that if a monitoring device is invented today, it can pick up vibrational frequencies that are beyond human perception, such as a 'dog whistle' but perhaps 1000's of times finer.
In the construction of theory, did this newly detected sound exist before the application of the new device, and is the device in effect creating the sound?
Sorry, by 'slight sound' I thought you were referring to amplitude rather than frequency.
Yes it's possible for equipment to detect frequencies beyond human hearing range because again it is simply a vibration of air molecules.
If sound is only what can be perceived,
then the equipment is not detecting sound.
Think of ultrasound.... this works by an ultra high rate of air molecules vibrating - but although it's called ultra-'sound', it's not possible to perceive it as such.
Surely 'sound' and vibration are two separate things, firstly vibration is a movement, so when 'ears' feel the movement then the brain makes the transformation from vibration into sound. Secondly devices for listening such as those used by environmental authorities to monitor sound issues in an urban area focus on vibration, thus not sound, that's only the ingredient of what 'we' call sound.
In relation to human ears, it's quite a well known fact that animals in general have superior hearing to humans, I'm guessing that this is due to how their brains interpret these vibrations as important, whilst humans are distracted from these basic instincts by being involved in more complicated thoughts, such distractions would inhibit thinking.
Sound is the vibration of air molecules or any other medium through which it can travel... such as water. Sound cannot travel through a vacuum... so no, sound is vibration caused by disturbances in any given medium. No medium - no sound.
ain't life cruel?
