Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 123 of 123

Thread: What happens to sound traveling from earth to outer space?

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman IAlexN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    If you strike a glass, it always vibrates at about the same frequency.
    I think you're referring to the fundamental frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Freshman nightex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7
    This sound wave energy would pull air molecules towards space vacuum. Later those molecules would be returned in earth atmosphere by gravity force. So basically sound wave energy pulls earth from its original orbit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    sound waves need matter to propagate. sound waves will travel in space until it eventually dissipates in to heat.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Egypt
    Posts
    2
    The Answer is simple , Because Sound waves ( Energy ) needs a media to move , such as air or water , and the porve is also simple : That tha astronauts canít speak togther on tha moon for Example , OR in space at all . :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Ghrasp wrote:

    If you strike a glass, it always vibrates at about the same frequency.


    I think you're referring to the fundamental frequency.
    I think that,s a quote from Kojax. Kojax can apparently only here distinctive notes where his eardrum can resonate on while most people can here sounds go up and down in tone continously (no steps). Or almost as the ear might react to some notes stronger. But still you can move you,re voice from low to high more or less fluently (and even Kojax could hear it . ).

    That tha astronauts canít speak together in space at all.
    If two astronauts are "in space" there is apparently no vacuum just more or less distance between them.

    Normally the energy of a voice would be absorbed by all the other surroundings including the air. In this case of two astronauts there is - almost - nothing, no-one else to hear anything apart from them but on huge distances one of the astronauts speaking the energy will be highly concentrated between them.

    But hasn,t this been tested when people where on the moon ? Like clapping hands and a microphone attached on the suit ?

    As a sidenote to this...lately there was a blind person on tv explaining how he could orientate in his surrounding. He could walk without a stick just fine (as it seemed) He made clacking sounds with his tongue and could - for instance hear and lokate a building, a tree, poles, people etc : distances, hights, meassurements, directions, even structures and density of materials. When the host put a globe on the table in front of him, he could tell the hight, repllicate the shape with his hands etc.

    He even sometimes got a vague clue of colours. The host put something red in front of him asking the colour and he could tell.

    Directly after I had to walk my dog and tried it out and it worked. It,s not hard to imagine that with some more practice it works as for him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Worthing, UK
    Posts
    7
    In summary;

    In terms of theoretical and mechanics-focused sci-fi, there seem to be two interesting options I've seen touched on.
    • Particles that move away from the earth as a result of sound are moved upwards as a result of Newton's Law, effectively shifting the Earth from its centre of collective mass veryvery slightly. This can be detected by blue/red shift nightex
    • As the explosion occurs, the sound will dissipate until the surface, where internal reflection will occur. All fluids, when subjected to a force like this, ripple at the surface, detectable by a number of means.

    Both depend on the speed of light, but are delayed as a result of the time it took for the explosion to arrive at the edge of the atmosphere. In addition, depending on the context, you could go all-out and have this electromagnetic information occur the other side of a black hole, slowing it down and curving it.

    Sorry if this has been said already, I'm ill, and so can't be held responsible for mistakes.

    ---

    Edit: An explanation of sound and vacuums

    Secondly, there is no such thing as a vacuum in space. If something exists in a plane, it's not a vacuum, as defined by physics. Sound is a wave affected solely by mechanics, and must have massive particles to effectively transmit it. One particle impacts another, and another, and energy is lost to heat while this continues. Sound can be transmitted in a minority of space, where particles are a certain distance apart relative to the wave energy (I'm not entirely sure, I haven't researched the exact correlation), but most of space is too sparse to transmit most sound.
    Hardly have a phd in topics covered. I may be wrong - if this is the case, by all means, please do call me up on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    One particle impacts another, and another, and energy is lost to heat while this continues.
    Wouldn,t that be funny shouting at a thermometer with the intend to heat up the air and thus the thermometer ?

    An astronaut that would throw a stone against another stone in space there is energy involved. If it is not transmitted as sound then what is the alternative ?

    The energy would at first heat up the stones and that heat radiates out ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Well, somehow this still is being about the phenomenon/fact some sort of audio waves seem to go through some don't.

    You won't hear the alarm clock covered by the glass cover (air evacuated already ), but you still could radio transmit communication through the vacuum of space.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    You won't hear the alarm clock covered by the glass cover (air evacuated already ), but you still could radio transmit communication through the vacuum of space.

    Even without vacuumtechnicque you almost won,t here the clock if it it is properly sealed.
    Besides the enormous tension of the glass could make the glass more isolating or make the sounds much different, maybe less hearable for the ear ?

    I wouldnt trust comparing this with the conditons astronauts are in (or there suits as tailormade spaceships are and they are in their suits...) on a walk outside a spaceship.

    But it still baffles me a little that no one comes up with some experimental data of spaceexpeditions (so aparently it has never been tested ?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Ghrasp, hello, how are you?

    Well, I see you got the point. There was being a NASA space mission underway.

    http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sh...ain/index.html

    As for yesterday, radio communication was working perfectly.

    The alarm clock - glass cover experiment might bear the answer, as a single experiment. You could determine yourself, if you would like to hear the clock sounding off or not. Simply evacuate some more air or even less.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Hello,

    I meant sound waves not radio. For instance a (directional) microphone on the suit of one astronaut connected to a headphone on his ear. If that hasn,t been tried on any of those spacestrips it would be supprising wouldn,t it ?

    Changing the density would also change the tension on the glass so it would still be questionable for any difference what makes it the change of density or that.

    It,s certain that hearing the direction off a sound in such circumstances is also more easy just like it is easier in a desert then in a forest. That carried to the extreme could also make a difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Sound is vibrations in air, essentially compression and expansion of air.

    Sound in a solid is the same thing, vibrations and pressure waves in the material.

    If there is no material to vibrate or increase decrease the pressure of then there is no sound.

    The example of smashing rocks together in deep space (or vacuum):

    on earth most of the energy transfers into kinetic energy on the other rock, some is transferred to heat, and some is dissipated into the air as compression waves (sound).

    in space there is no medium to compress, so there is no sound wave. More energy is transferred as kinetic energy and heat than for the same example on earth.

    I dont understand how this issue has survived 8 pages of posts.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Well, again, somewhere I saw a video which was showing the change in audibility of the alarm clock depending on the amount of air evacuated or let back in under the glass cover.

    That's pretty much a matter of fact, that can't be being discussed to dead in one or the other way

    What I'm trying to do was, I'm about to suggest that there are so much, lets say particles or to differentiate materials in space, that some sort of waves are transmitted other are not.

    Might this be true? Chances are there, it was.

    Probably one could try not only to put an alarm clock, but some other wireless radio device under the glass cover to see what the outcome was? Wireless radio transmissions still working while the clocks sounding offs where becoming slowly silent, yet?

    Steve

    // edit //
    // harvestein posted in between //
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Your making a mash up of definitions i think.
    What you are describing isnt sound.
    There are waves that travel through space, they are called electromagnetic waves, you have allready had this discussion. You cant descibe that type of wave as 'sound'. There is no medium being compressed or expanded or for pressure to exist in. its a totally different mechanism from sound.

    Sound waves: Are variations in pressure of a material or medium
    Electromagnetic waves: Are packets of photons (can travel through a vacuum)

    I know certain people are going to start picking apart my definitions because its not 10 pages long, but there is no point. The general principal is there, so lets just leave it at that.

    You can detect objects by the heat they emit, and that would be at the speed of light. You could detect an explosion using that method. But you cant call it a 'sound wave' it is an electromagnetic wave. It doesnt require a material to pass through like sound does.
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    Well, again, somewhere I saw a video which was showing the change in audibility of the alarm clock depending on the amount of air evacuated or let back in under the glass cover.

    That's pretty much a matter of fact, that can't be being discussed to dead in one or the other way.
    Not - again - if it didn,t change the tension of the glass of the cover. If it did (and it does, such covers must be able to take a lot of pressure, I worked with one for years) that could very well result in a dampeningeffect on the sound. So again it doens,t mean much if you can,t rule that out.

    Putting a recorder under the same cover as the clock would be more meaningfull.
    But then the recorder has to be suitable for the circumstances also.
    (as a sidenote underneath such a vacuumcover there is still an uncountable amount of molecules)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Your making a mash up of definitions i think.
    Steve, I have to agree with Harvestein. He goes on to give a nice summary of the points made ad nauseum in this thread. You still seem unable, or unwilling to grasp these very simple principles. What can we do to end this ridiculous exchange once and for all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Well yes might be. But, only therefore we used to communicate the way did, we bushdrummed the way we did we radio communicate the way we did.

    So even if there was a little mashing, it can't be that bad.

    Hence, if we try to understand certain phenomena we have to get back or forward, depending on your definition, to particle physics. And only therefore these kind of experiment was worthwhile to be conducted.

    Remember, we don't see what's going on factually. We categories and we archive, but we have no idea what we are doing.

    About the only point we could get a hold on was the history of the way such devices as radios where invented. In natural sciences nature was the ideal.

    Now, in front of this background and in foresight of the need to make true physical advance on the fields of particle physics, how far can or should electromagnetic waves and sound waves be separated specifically under lab conditions as layed out in my posting before.

    Not that far I think. Sorry if you have an other opinion, but that's the truth.

    I simply think, if I was about to lie on these facts I already was being dead, that I'm not.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    Now, in front of this background and in foresight of the need to make true physical advance on the fields of particle physics, how far can or should electromagnetic waves and sound waves be separated specifically under lab conditions as layed out in my posting before.

    Not that far I think. Sorry if you have an other opinion, but that's the truth.
    In that case Steve there is nothing more to be said. It is true that as wave phenomena there are certain similarities, indeed identities, between sound waves and electromagnetic waves. However, this relates to some aspects of their behaviour, not to their fundamental character. This is not an opinion, this is how it is. You are quite simply wrong. Utterly. Enjoy your delusions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Ophiolite, I actually hate to object but I have to. Your e quite right in what you where saying, despite the delusional thing.

    However, on waves propagation and/or waves dissipation, there are other aspects I would like to point to.

    I think the actual key to understand waves themselves was to understand how they propagate or dissipate.

    I mean particularly how they will interact with lets say, for instance, particles as they are being on there ways through space.

    That's the key issue, I would say, and there will lie all the information needed to understand waves themselves.

    There, as well, will not only be certain but significant similarities of waves of many kinds, so to speak.

    It might be that such an understanding of waves corresponding to their surroundings will let us key up waves in different but usual ways so that we are able to source other spectrums of light to perform some sort of work for us.

    Or that we will be able, by the use of duly weapons, to protect ourselves while being on space missions far from home.

    These where being my considerations of the issue.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghrasp
    Ghrasp wrote:

    If you strike a glass, it always vibrates at about the same frequency.


    I think you're referring to the fundamental frequency.
    I think that,s a quote from Kojax. Kojax can apparently only here distinctive notes where his eardrum can resonate on while most people can here sounds go up and down in tone continously (no steps). Or almost as the ear might react to some notes stronger. But still you can move you,re voice from low to high more or less fluently (and even Kojax could hear it . ).

    You're right that you don't have to hit something at an exact frequency in order to accomplish resonance with it. How it works is that, most objects have an exact frequency at which they experience resonance the best, but you don't have to nail it exactly. The further you are off the mark, the smaller the percentage of the energy it absorbs. If you're far enough off the mark, the percentage that's being absorbed can become negligibly small. That's why my eardrum won't pick up ultrasonic sound.

    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Your making a mash up of definitions i think.
    What you are describing isnt sound.
    There are waves that travel through space, they are called electromagnetic waves, you have allready had this discussion. You cant descibe that type of wave as 'sound'. There is no medium being compressed or expanded or for pressure to exist in. its a totally different mechanism from sound.
    If the medium has charged particles on the outer edge facing the vacuum, wouldn't the sudden motion caused by the sound wave cause them to emit EM radiation in small amounts? It would probably be really hard to detect something that small, but technically the signal should be readable at a distance.

    Does that count? Technically, it means the sound wave is being transduced into an EM wave before we get to hear it, so our listening device needs to have a way of transducing it back.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Junior Steiner101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    251
    Again were kind of mincing up what the words actually mean.

    Yes there is a change in the EM radiation from the objects after/during the impact, but its not sound, its an Electromagnetic wave. Thats like calling a flash of light a 'sound' or there is a massive wave of sound when you switch a light on, or your toaster screams loudly at the bread to heat it up.

    The main difference is that sound is actuallly a change of the variables within the medium. Nothing actually moved. If you create a sound, the air molecules push forward against other air molecules increasing the pressure at that point. But the sound itself is the difference in pressure, not the air molecules themselves, the points of high pressure move forward through the medium (in this case is air but could be water). The air molecules dont move from where the sound originates and end up somewhere else. your farts cant be smelled as soon as the sound of it reaches the victims nose.

    whereas light/ EM waves are particles that actually move in a trajectory, they transmit, move from A to B. the particles ARE the wave. They can quite happily dance about in a void/vacuum or whatever else you want to call it. There doesnt need to be a medium for it to move in, it is not a pressure wave.

    I dont know how many other ways there are to try to get the point across so this is my last post. Now i realise why the thread has lasted 8 pages.

    EDIT: make that nine pages!
    'Aint no thing like a chicken wing'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    574
    The key thing is to understand that a wave cant be completely tranversal or longitudinal. Often one factor is neglected but it is always there for sound and vision. Longitudinality and transversality are both components of any wave and as such abstract. Studying the longitudinality is allright but the complete wave is never only longitudinal. If you understand that, the similarities are more clear as well as the differences. But most people think longitudinal with light. But then my question is how can one foton pass two slits if there is no transversality. Take the screen with the slits away and you still have one foton that spreads out all over the screen. Use laser and the longitudinal aspect is increased. Different colour maybe also means different relation of longitudinality and transversality (both perpendicular to each other).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by harvestein
    Again were kind of mincing up what the words actually mean.

    Yes there is a change in the EM radiation from the objects after/during the impact, but its not sound, its an Electromagnetic wave. Thats like calling a flash of light a 'sound' or there is a massive wave of sound when you switch a light on, or your toaster screams loudly at the bread to heat it up.
    I understand that it's not really sound that is traveling through space in my example. If the sound gets transduced into EM radiation at the outer edge of the medium, then it has clearly ceased to be sound. However, the information contained in that sound will remain intact.

    If I were to shout something at the moon at a loud enough volume so that some of it gets transduced into EM radiation strong enough to be detected at the Moon's surface, it would be possible for a highly sensitive machine picking up that EM radiation to figure out what I was saying, or even convert it back into sound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •