Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A tree falls in the woods question about SIRI...
- Thread starter hakr100
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It so does matter.
Look at it this way...If you were wearing sound isolation ear muffs that were 100% effective, and stood in the forest and watched the tree fall, you wouldn't hear anything. Why? Because the ear muffs block the sound waves from entering your ear. No physics needed. This is not something that is unproven, or debateable. It's a simple fact. Sound waves are not audible without a receivng ear.
It's not a simple fact, it's a just a silly anthropocentric point of view that only philosophers can come up with. Scientists know that if every time that a tree falls it makes a sound, then it will still make a sound whether there is someone to hear it or not. As the Merriam-Webster says: sound is the "mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing". A falling tree surrounded by air, will produce longitudinal pressure waves always, not matter is someone is there or not. Also it is impossible to say that there are no animals there that could hear the sound. All the silly previous postings about quantum mechanics and basically, the "measurement problem", don't apply in this case because those "weird" quantum phenomena only happen in the submicroscopic world. They never happen in the macroscopic world (Schrodinger cat is a methaphore, not real). To whoever said that light is just a wave, from the point of view of quantum mechanics is both a wave and a stream of particles (photons).
ok then how about this:
set up a camera in an enclosed tank with nothing inside apart from the tree. record and watch the tree fall down, would the camera detect a noise?
No it doesn't
Sound is interpretation of compression waves. To have sound, you need both a source of the waves as well as a receiver. If there is no receiver, there is no sound.
Yes, as person A can hear the noise he is creating.
To person B, no
If you have a reciver to interpret the compression waves, then it would be sound. Otherwise no.
Just like we don't detect sound for frequencies our ears are unable to pick up.
One needs to understand
1) what sound is (compression waves)
2) what components one needs to interpret it as "sound". (Emitter->medium->reciever). If one of those 3 is missing, there is no sound
Exactly
People who think there is a sound infer that if they were there, there would be sound because they would be able to interpret the waves. And that is true. However, you are not there so there is nothing to interpret
Yes provided the camera can decipher the waves created via you know, a receiver. If the camera had no mic, it would not record a sound...
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
The real question is if a tree falls in a deserted wood with no-one there to observe it, does it exist at all?
The real question is if a tree falls in a deserted wood with no-one there to observe it, does it exist at all?
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 4: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
The real question is if a tree falls in a deserted wood with no-one there to observe it, does it exist at all?
Lol
Well according to one poster all particals turn into waves when not observed.
That is just one definition of sound. Go to the dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sound[3]) and you will see two relevant definitions:
b : the sensation perceived by the sense of hearing
That's the one that you are referring to, and
c : mechanical radiant energy that is transmitted by longitudinal pressure waves in a material medium (as air) and is the objective cause of hearing
In this definition, sound is just energy trasmitted in a particular way and which is the cause of hearing. It doesn't imply in any way that it has to be heard.
When I get into this debate with someone I sometimes use radio ways as a comparison. Is it really "radio" without a radio to receive the radio waves? (Not a great comparison but usually brings them around.)
It is not a philisophical debate: it's purely technical.
Michael
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)
Particles into waves. Watch to end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhYBwLysvB8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Particles into waves. Watch to end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhYBwLysvB8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Identical ??? If you can't tell the difference between "sensation" and "energy" then there's nothing more to discuss then. Why would there be two "identical" definitions in the dictionary? You do understand that words can have different meanings, right?
That is a great example and illustrates the point nicely
Yes identical.
The "sensation" is that very mechanical energy. What's not to get?
The first definition is non technical and the second one is technical. They are identical in meaning.
But quantum physics doesn't apply to sound waves. Even if you would try to apply it to the macroscopic world, you would only get the traditional mechanics results.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A406 Safari/7534.48.3)
It applies when your not observing as the world you see is particle based. What does a world look like wave based? You can't know because as you observe it becomes particle based.
So the original questoon when no ones there to look at the tree.
ogs123 said:
It applies when your not observing as the world you see is particle based. What does a world look like wave based? You can't know because as you observe it becomes particle based.
So the original questoon when no ones there to look at the tree.
No, the second definition says that the sensation of hearing is caused by the mechanical energy or sound waves, it's not the mechanical energy. Something can't be "cause" and the object of a cause at the same time. The sensation of hearing arises from the excitation of the tympanic membrane by the sound waves, it's not the sound waves.
----------
That doesn't make any sense at all. The macroscopic world is not particle based. There are particles and waves, like the sound waves. The submicroscopic world is the one that is really in a mixed state between particles and waves. According to what and how you measure, sometimes it behaves like a particle and sometimes like a wave. The macroscopic world is not in such state because the Planck constant is too small.
And your point being what again? How do you think that "sensation" arises? It is by that mechanical pressure waves..aka sound that encounters that "membrane" in our ears. I mean that is the point of our ears, to act as a receiver for these energetic pressure waves that we interpret as sound.
Not sure how this is disagreeing with anything I have said. I have established that to have sound, you have to have a receiver.
The point of the tree falling is there is no way to prove it. There is no right or wrong answer.
We CANNOT debate this it's the point of the phrase.
Like Murphy's law like I mentioned before. It's 100% accurate because it can not be disapproved. There is NO point to argue sides.
To dumb it down it would be like me telling you that your opinion is wrong. Regardless of how I feel about your opinion I can't make it wrong because it's yours.
We CANNOT debate this it's the point of the phrase.
Like Murphy's law like I mentioned before. It's 100% accurate because it can not be disapproved. There is NO point to argue sides.
To dumb it down it would be like me telling you that your opinion is wrong. Regardless of how I feel about your opinion I can't make it wrong because it's yours.
I think you all are missing the point here. It's pretty cut and dry. If a tree falls - it makes a noise whether someone is there to hear it or not. You don't need to interpret it any further. It's not that deep even if you try and make it that way.
A tree falls - a sound/wave/vibration is made. Nobody has to be around to hear or know it exists. Just because a human isn't present to hear the event doesn't mean it never happened. Lol. Pretty presumptuous to think that really.
Next you're going to tell me God exists.
If you really want your mind blown - go look up Schrödinger's cat
Lol
Well according to one poster all particals turn into waves when not observed.
This is what he may have meant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Excuse the cartoon, quantum psychics have to be extremely dumb down for most people (myself included) to grasp the concepts.