If a tree falls

Well, I guess I shouldn't be disappointed. I thought for a second there was going to be a thread where we finally agreed on something. I was with you all the way. I merely pointed out the technically correct answer.So this is why I don't think you are logical. To point out the technically correct answer to someone with a scientific mind, or a logical one at that, (?) should be a no brainer. There shouldn't be an argument or an accusation of me trying to play games with you.It is what it is. It either is, or it isn't, that is logical.Just imagine when the roles are reversed, and we are talking about evolution. You are extremely quick to point out any mistake I might make.That fact that I point out that technicality, makes me more than capable of grasping the point. with all the little details you pointed out to everyone about the color red, and the frequency of Cm, you should be the last one in this thread to go on about playing games.Leave it to you to type up 5 pages of semantics in this thread, and then accuse me of playing a game, and not grasping points.You would have looked much better, and people would have thought of you better, if you would have just said that I was correct, and left it at that. If anyone here is king of semantics, its you, and you have just proven it in this thread.BTW, that doesn't mean that I don't like you, or the semantics you play. I am sure it serves some kind of purpose.

I don't see a problem with involving other theories in this thread, but it may go way beyond what I know.So a question, since we cannot observe quantom particles directly, ot without the aid on some kind of instrument, wouldn't that indicate that if anything is observing the sound of a tree falling, then it is affected.Since sound cannot happen unless 2 objects interact with each other, then there is always an observing party involved. So reality theories wouldn't make a difference or not. Once sound happens, then more than one particle will know about it.

Say that cymbol was in space. What happens to the waves within its own structure, when the wave reaches the end of the object?Is it simply absorbed by the object from trying to stretch and compress the material within?Or is it released off the object into space somehow, other that a sound wave.Pretend that space is an absolute vaacum for these questions.I am just thinking that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So I was wondering what happens to the energy from the sound waves after say 2 objects collide in space.

Good question. As you infer, the effective vacuum prevents the generation of external sound waves. The different vibrational modes will reflect off the object boundaries, and the waves will persist for much longer than if the cymbal was in air. However, as with all (non-quantum) energetic phenomena, the wave energy will gradually heat the cymbal, reducing the waves until they are effectively dampened. The excess heat will then slowly radiate away.

Is that similar to what was reported here?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One of the main differences is that the stellar vibrations are forced, i.e. energy is being continually added via the convection cells, which in turn are driven (eventually) by the fusion in the core. So the vibrations are not dying out. But otherwise, similar enough Except that I would not normally consider quite so many modes in looking at the vibrations of a cymbal! 37 is quite extreme...Oh, and thanks for reminding me of this; it's great stuff. Their paper is a good read (which is why it's taken 10mins to get this post out!) I sometimes really regret leaving practical astrophysics for the theoretical stuff

IIRC one of the things involved in analyzing the results from the Deep Impact mission to Tempel 1 was "listening" to the ringing from the impact.This message has been edited by jar, 01-02-2006 06:25 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm sure that's right, but as it's half past midnight I'll refrain from reading any more papers tonight The reason though will be the same as the stellar seismology... it's a wonderful probe of the interior densities of the object in question. Just imagine, we are analysing the INTERNAL structure of a star light years (well, 4) away!

Links to your papers on the subject?

I prefer my anonymity here. Not that I have any papers on QM per se... my work and papers are in relativity, quantum gravity and string theory. Still, I was considered to posses sufficient competence to tutor Advanced QM to graduates at Cambridge. Not that that course came remotely close to the levels of informal debate and investigation we would have on the subject in the Relativity Group. So I would describe my understanding of QM as reasonbably above half-assed.But if you want to think me a liar, that's fine by me

No, he was answering the question with a definition of sound that does not involve the phenomenon we call hearing. Making emphatic statements and handwaving someone elses opinion as irrelevent or illogical is a positon of arrogance and self imposed superiority in my opinion. I already know my opinion means squat to you since you seem to only agree with those who share your personally carved out version of what reality is or is not. Basing all of it on the premise that you know your right and everyone else must be wrong. How sad is that.Of all those 7 theories I posted, the only one that divorces
observation from reality is neo realism. Favored by Dr. Einstien, who had to eventually accept observation/or measurement can have affects on how events are actualized. Why should I accept a dude off the internets statement that observing quantum events has No bearing on macro events? Or the fact that a word can be defined in different ways can have a bearing on how the proposition is interpreted. Why should I accept only his definition? Is it not true that any change in initial conditions, however small, affects the out come of events enormously? Is that not what is taught in caos theory? Is that not why there is a element of randomness in reality? Maybe I am incorrect.I know you know the sun is a thermonuclear reactor creating He from H {a quantum event} and also your eyes you use to observe the macro world around you, absorbs the light energy emittied by the sun from the local field in fact makes a CHANGE to the field which can be otherwise stated as observation affecting reality. Or is that not correct? Do not trees use leaves to collect the energy from light, begining a electron transport {a quantum event}to eventually make glucose? Which in turn supports human life. Can it not be said that the leaves absorbing this energy are affecting reality by changing light energy into human fuel. Do not plants percieve light? Can this not be also interpreted as a form of observation? Do they not affect how reality plays out? Can you divorce yourself from the mosaic of matter and energy / quantum soup that everything is composed of? Maybe I am just reading into things to much. Maybe things are much simpler than they seem to be. Peace.

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

No, that's not correct. Light is photons, not fields.

Quantum fieldtheory explores the phenomenon of light and it's interactions with organic bags of carbon and water such as yourself. It is another example of what you called knowlege for the sake of knowlege that you know nothing about.

Spooky action at a distance? I thought we were done with that in Newton's time. Certainly after the photoelectric effect. Maybe you heard of the guy that got the Nobel prize for that? Some kind of einstein, I guess.

1.61803 is correct. A field is not a "force field". It is "force" that is "instantaneous" or "action at a distance" in the context of "force of gravity" or "electric force"/"magnetic force". The concept of field was introduceed with Maxwell (and Faraday) and although Maxwell was completely unaware of it, his e/m field had relativistic causality built in. Einstein realised that and it led him to Special Relativity. The next field theory was his General Relativity, where the causal metric (tensor) field replaced the instantaneous force of gravity.Now photons are the quantum particles of light, as suggested by the Einstein's Photoelectric Effect as you mentioned. The Maxwell's wave nature was augmented (but not wholly replaced) by this particle nature. However, the quantum mechanical version of the wave (the photon's wave function) did not sit happily with its classical origin. Furthermore, the quantum mechanics of photons was incapable of dealing appropriately with interactions: the photon "disappears" or is "absorbed" on interaction with an electron. This is impossible in the quantum mechanics of particles.Which brings us back to fields. Quantum Field Theory or 2nd Quantisation is the next development of quantum mechanics, taking everything back to the original classical field theory, quantising it directly, and doing away with the particle description. This enables the possibility of creation and annihilation of "particles", where these particles are merely local excitations of quantum modes of the field. Imagine a spring mattress. A particle is simply the propegation of a vibration through the mattress. This doesn't just apply to the photons but also the electrons. Electrons are merely excitations of the quantum electron field.The QFT of photons and electrons is known as Quantum ElectroDynamics (QED) and won Feynman his Nobel Prize. We also have Quantum ChromoDynamics (QCD) for the quarks and gluons, and finally ElectroWeak Theory which unifies QED with the Ws, Zs and the rest of the leptons (neutrinos, muons and tauons).This message has been edited by cavediver, 01-03-2006 04:23 AM