Heat (3 Viewers)

[JohnnyRaz]

The source is still vibrating at whatever frequency it's vibrating at.

ok - got it, no change at source..

but if it can propagate through the medium (air), faster in condition A rather than condition B would that result in a relative change of pitch to an observer particular point of distance?

or is it as case of reduced signal decay in hotter conditions rather than colder conditions?

(not a physicist - a lapsed research scientist of a different color)

 

[Space]

ok - got it, no change at source..

but if it can propagate through the medium (air), faster in condition A rather than condition B would that result in a relative change of pitch to an observer particular point of distance?

or is it as case of reduced signal decay in hotter conditions rather than colder conditions?

(not a physicist - a lapsed research scientist of a different color)

It's a relationship between speed, frequency and wavelength.

 

[magicbastarder]

ok - got it, no change at source..

but if it can propagate through the medium (air), faster in condition A rather than condition B would that result in a relative change of pitch to an observer particular point of distance?

the source is still producing one 'pulse' every 5 milliseconds say - so unless the source is actually moving towards the observer, in order for the pitch to go up, there would have to be more pulses produced per unit time, and in this instance there won't be.

 

[ernesto]

I was curious - Mean we could be talking about 10 degrees in a winter shift, and 30 today, so the sound is hitting you faster by up to 12m/s

(Thats 43kmh faster)

View attachment 14999

Sound actually travels further at lower temperatures / at night.

molecules are small enough to vibrate more and transfer sound energy

go figure

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

*Kanyes up to the stage*
Yo, Thumped, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but while these physical properties of vibrations are nice and all but sound only exists as a Bayesian confluence of percepts in a highly complex and dispersed network in the brain, filtered through a physiological transducer in the form of the ears and auditory system. Which are all also temperature-dependent.

 

[Lili Marlene]

*Kanyes up to the stage*
Yo, Thumped, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but while these physical properties of vibrations are nice and all but sound only exists as a Bayesian confluence of percepts in a highly complex and dispersed network in the brain, filtered through a physiological transducer in the form of the ears and auditory system. Which are all also temperature-dependent.

ah yes, the gold standard

Prince Hosted a Facebook Q&A and Answered Just One Really Specific Question

But he never meant to cause us any sorrow, he never meant to cause us any pain

time.com

 

[ann post]

*Kanyes up to the stage*
Yo, Thumped, I'm really happy for you, I'mma let you finish but while these physical properties of vibrations are nice and all but sound only exists as a Bayesian confluence of percepts in a highly complex and dispersed network in the brain, filtered through a physiological transducer in the form of the ears and auditory system. Which are all also temperature-dependent.

Yes but how does a JCB percieve.

 

[pete]

Yes but how does a JCB percieve.

It doesn’t perceive sound, it digs it.

 

[flashback]

If a JCB makes a sound in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, do JCBs exist?

Something to ponder on.

 

[Space]

It doesn’t perceive sound, it digs it.

Kan ye dig it?

 

[ann post]

If a JCB makes a sound in the forest, and there's no one around to hear it, do JCBs exist?

Something to ponder on.

If a JCB makes a sound in the Forest, does a hoover percieve the PIN Number for an ATM machine?

 

[egg_]

sound only exists as a Bayesian confluence of percepts in a highly complex and dispersed network in the brain, filtered through a physiological transducer in the form of the ears and auditory system

I'm starting to doubt this point of view, and suspect it might be a subtle form of human exceptionalism. If a tree falls in a forest it probably does make a sound. What happens when I hear the tree is matter (me) is affected by the movement of other matter (the tree). Why should the fact that the first piece of matter is a human make any difference to anything?

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

I'm starting to doubt this point of view, and suspect it might be a subtle form of human exceptionalism. If a tree falls in a forest it probably does make a sound. What happens when I hear the tree is matter (me) is affected by the movement of other matter (the tree). Why should the fact that the first piece of matter is a human make any difference to anything?

Clearly we accept that sounds we don’t hear still exist but the concept of a sound can’t exist without a listener. We accept the idea of infra and ultrasonic sounds - we can’t hear them (maybe Prince can) but without the base idea of a sound, we cannot conceive of them.

Compare that to something that we only have a conceptual idea of, like a quark. We know they exist but we have no frame of reference for perceiving them. We also know vibrations exist but we do have a way of perceiving them, so pushing that to a sound without a human audience (but what about the animals in the forest?) or beyond our range of perception is not unreasonable.

 

[Unicron]

Can't believe what is essentially still a music forum is having a sciencey discussion on sound and we're on page 3 with no mention of hte fletcher munson curves. I am disgusted.

 

[egg_]

the concept of a sound can’t exist without a listener

Yes, but the listener doesn't need to be human, maybe not even animal. "Human" and "animal" are just ideas too. We know from personal experience that stuff (us) can remotely perceive the movement of other stuff (not-us) via vibrations in a medium. Sound is just that from the inside

 

[seanc]

Science is fun.

On a more practical level, the oil in the JCB will be more viscous at this temperature, which would make it more clanky.

 

[ann post]

I think a JCB can percieve both through the hand controls of the operator and the resistance inputs from the crust of the earth. Sound would be very low on its sensory amplitude spectrum.

 

[Cornu Ammonis]

Yes, but the listener doesn't need to be human, maybe not even animal. "Human" and "animal" are just ideas too. We know from personal experience that stuff (us) can remotely perceive the movement of other stuff (not-us) via vibrations in a medium. Sound is just that from the inside

that’s still a level of anthropomorphism that you need to be careful with. Perceiving a vibration in a medium does not always equate with sound or hearing. You can feel a vibration in your fingertips and that is perceived in the brain very differently to a sound, even the sound of the thing vibrating (think about sitting in the car, the sensation of the engine and the road beneath the wheels is both a vibration and a sound with a common source and conceptual framework).

 

[JohnnyRaz]

ah sure you're all just figments of my imagination when it comes down to it

 

[ann post]

As a mate said once.

Constructs are a human construct.