Brain Teaser

[PrincessFiona60]

Ah but when the tree falls, it creates that disturbace of the air as you stated, much like when an object is thrown into a pool. The air, being fluid in nature, react just as the water did, by transmitting that disruption's energy in the form of waves, at a particular frequency. And yet, we don't hear the waves traveling though the water, except those that are within our hearing range. We call water waves silent. And though we may feel very low frequency air waves, we don't call that sound, as we can't hear them.

I submit that the definition of sound is that frequency of fluid that strikes the proper sensory organs to be interpreted by the brain as sound.

Therefore, if there is nothing to hear the sound, then it is simply an energy wave propagated through a medium, not sound. In other words, it isn't sound until it is perceived as sound, be it a bug, or a person.

All discussion about this topic is welcomed. To me, this could be an interesting discussion.

Seeeeeya; Chief Longwind of the North

But if the person present is deaf? The sound is still there, just not perceived as sound. Add in a second person who is not deaf.

Sound can be perceived as an air pressure wave...

 

[Andy M.]

...And yet, we don't hear the waves traveling though the water, except those that are within our hearing range. We call water waves silent. And though we may feel very low frequency air waves, we don't call that sound, as we can't hear them.

I submit that the definition of sound is that frequency of fluid that strikes the proper sensory organs to be interpreted by the brain as sound.

Therefore, if there is nothing to hear the sound, then it is simply an energy wave propagated through a medium, not sound. In other words, it isn't sound until it is perceived as sound, be it a bug, or a person...

If you were in the water, you'd hear the sound waves.

Requiring sounds to be heard is the physiological definition. The physics definition has no such requirement. Sound is independent of receptors. you don't have to be there.

Is light not there if you aren't there to see it? Is heat not there? Are rocks not there if you aren't there for me to throw them at you?

 

[Chief Longwind Of The North]

If you were in the water, you'd hear the sound waves.

Requiring sounds to be heard is the physiological definition. The physics definition has no such requirement. Sound is independent of receptors. you don't have to be there.

Is light not there if you aren't there to see it? Is heat not there? Are rocks not there if you aren't there for me to throw them at you?

Rocks to throw at me, he says.

Andy, I believe that you and the princess are both correct. But I had to play devil's advocate, just a little. I was merely alluding to the philosophical nature, rather than the physical-universe-nature of the question.

I believe that there are many who would state the opposite of what you have said, and believe it whole-heartedly.

Now, about cooking with sound...

 

[PrincessFiona60]

Cooking with sound would be cost prohibitive and cause severe hearing loss.

 

[Andy M.]

...I was merely alluding to the philosophical nature, rather than the physical-universe-nature of the question...

I prefer science to philosophy.

 

[Chief Longwind Of The North]

Cooking with sound would be cost prohibitive and cause severe hearing loss.

Think outside the box. Look at a few Rube Goldberg machines on line. Thing of sound used as an actuator.

Seeeeeya; Goodweed of the North

 

[PrincessFiona60]

as in using the sub woofer on the surround sound to turn on the stove...thinking...

 

[taxlady]

Chief, it depends on the definition of sound. If you use the definition in physics, then it makes a sound. If you use the definition from physiology or psychology, then it doesn't.

I'm with Andy on this one.