The Ancients Knew the Power of Sound We are Only Discovering Now

[andy06shake]

I already told you.  It is a bi-bell inside a grindstone.  A heavy mass spinning inside one way, and a heavy mass surrounding it spinning the other way.  That is what creates the force that helps generate electromagnetism.  You couldn’t make light without it.

So our Earth is some kind of cosmic washing machine?

We know where electromagnetic waves come from...accelerating electric charges.

Radio transmitters, lasers, and electronics work because of this, not because the Earth is secretly spinning a cosmic gearbox.

[ArMaP]

Your answers suck  

It weren't answers, it was a pair of questions.

There is no empty space.  Wind does not block gravity.  Sound waves can travel in space, they just can’t be heard without air.

So, does that mean that if a bomb explodes in Earth orbit we should ear it (if it's strong enough)?

[MonkMode]

So our Earth is some kind of cosmic washing machine?

[MonkMode]

So, does that mean that if a bomb explodes in Earth orbit we should ear it (if it's strong enough)?

Strong enough for what?

Probably not, unless there was an another wave to pick up the sound wave from the explosion and transmit it to my ear.

[andy06shake]

[Video: https://youtu.be/CzR1tHuTSUk?si=9ObIyVX7Ute5pocM]

I do like Nirvana...

[Astyanax]

I will bid you piggies adieu with a good old ribbing.

Cutting and running after getting your backside well kicked.

What happened to brave gallant who was proud to have the grace to admit they were wrong?

You’re still wearing that T-shirt, only now IT says AND I'M CHICKEN TOO on the back.

[chr0naut]

Your answers suck   There is no empty space.  Wind does not block gravity.  Sound waves can travel in space, they just can’t be heard without air.

There is a famous experiment with a bit of equipment called a 'bell jar'.

In the experiment, a wind up mechanical bell is placed inside of the jar, and the air is then pumped out of the jar.

As the air is pumped out, the sound of the bell outside of the jar gets quieter and quieter until it is inaudible.

This is because sound cannot travel in a vacuum.

Sound vibrates air molecules and if you pump them out of the jar, there is noting to vibrate.

Outside of the jar, there is air, so if sound could travel in a vacuum, we would hear it.

If you let air back into the jar, you can start to hear the bell again.




Also, there is a absolute minimum 'packet' of electromagnetic energy that exists, called a photon.

Photons are like a particle in that they travel through a vacuum (like a baseball, if thrown by an astronaut would move through outer space). It is a fairly mundane explanation of why the electromagnetic photons don't require a medium in which to travel, because they are a little object.

Photons also have the attributes of a wave, as demonstrated by the double slit diffraction experiment.

Electromagnetic waves at their lowest power, i.e. as photons, consist of oscillating and self-attractive forces of magnetism and electric charge which are spatially and temporally at 90 degrees to each others' wave form, constantly mutating from magnetic form to electric charge form and back and forth again. This is how a photon has both the attributes of a wave and of a particle.

Radio waves consist of lots, and lots, and lots, of electromagnetic photons that sometimes there are more of, and sometimes there are less of, in waves. Because radio waves are made out of photons, they can travel through empty space and don't need any media.

We can see stars whose light has travelled, over interstellar distances, for millions of years, in very high vacuum. In those spaces between stars, the gravitation and the matter it arises from is miniscule, and yet very low energy light (electromagnetic waves at single photon power) travel very easily, even though we know that the light should be thinning out and getting weaker according to the inverse square of the distance. So, electromagnetic waves (photons) actually travel better in a vacuum, without a media, than they do in space occupied by atoms.

Although the wave itself, as a concept, is similar in both sound and radio waves, the underlying physical nature is different. Also sound is at a considerably lower frequency than radio waves. When you listen to a radio transceiver you are hearing low audible frequency oscillations imposed upon the higher frequency radio waveform.

[Astyanax]

There is a famous experiment with a bit of equipment called a 'bell jar'.

The bell-jar story is a very good illustrative example. By the way, it’s called a bell jar because of its shape. Robert Boyle (1627–1691, who discovered the law which relates gas pressure to volume), famously conducted a series of experiments with such a jar, putting various objects inside, pumping out the air and seeing how the objects were affected. One of the objects introduced was a bird, which promptly suffocated. There’s a famous painting by Joseph Wright ‘of Derby’ that depicts that experiment being performed, though Boyle is not shown in it.
 

Also, there is a absolute minimum amount of electromagnetic charge that exists, called a photon.

I don’t want to be difficult (not that I need to try, I suppose ), but this is not correct, and since we’re upholding the scientific side of the conversation in this thread, I think we should get our science as right as we can.

There are not one but three critical errors in the above sentence.

1. there is no such thing as an electromagnetic charge
   
2. a photon has zero electrical charge
   
3. uncharged photons are the only force carriers of electromagnetism
   

Charge is an electrostatic, not an electromagnetic phenomenon. Objects are electrically charged when the number of protons in them is unequal to the number of electrons. Charged objects attract or repel one another, like opposing magnetic poles. So charge is a form of energy, ie the capacity to move masses through space.

When charged objects move through space, what we call an electromagnetic field is produced. What this means is that there is a sphere of potential energy surrounding the moving object, and any other charged or magnetized object within this sphere will tend to move towards the first object or away from it. The force tending to cause this motion varies in an inverse-square relationship with the distance from the first object.

Something has to carry this energy through space from one object to another. We know from a long history of experiment that it is carried by waves of light, which can helpfully be treated mathematically by thinking of them as packets of fixed amounts of energy, called photons.

We think of photons as having kinetic energy (even though they are massless). This is converted into electrical potential energy (charge) when a photon strikes an atom. Electrons, a kind of charged subatomic particle, are usually found tightly bound to atomic nuclei. The kinetic impact of a photon can increase their energy, making the bond unstable or even breaking it altogether. To return to stability, the atom needs to emit photons of energy equal to the one that struck it.

To produce those photons, positive and negative charges are annihilated by the conversion of their energy into light. This is what happens when, for instance, an electric spark is produced. It is also what happens when you a heat an object; the heat (kinetic energy) is dissipated partly through radiation, which is the emission of photons. Even if we don’t see the object glow red hot, it’s still emitting photons in the infrared spectrum, which are invisible to us though we can sometimes feel them as heat on our skins.
 

*     *     *

To be honest, I’m not sure an explanation of the kind I have given here really helps any lay person understand these phenomena. It seems full of illogicality and paradox. This, I think, is why people like MonkMode prefer to explain them through made-up stories; the objective explanations we favour are conceptually difficult, often very complicated, and don’t seem to add up. How can a massless particle have momentum? How can this massless (and chargeless) object produce, by spontaneous division, two massive objects, one positively and one negatively charged? Why do electricity and magnetism sometimes seem related and at other times completely different? The more one thinks about such things, the less sense they seem to make.

But though words fail us, the paradoxes that appear when we use them to describe these things are resolved when we treat them mathematically. We find that the maths not only accurately describes the phenomena we observe but that the accounting all adds up along the bottom line. But mathematics is hard, and the mathematics which describes the motion of charges in an electromagnetic field is some of the hardest I have ever been invited to wrap my head around: Maxwell’s Equations. If I ever understood them fully, that day is long gone.

I sometimes envy our fantastical friends, who feel no need to have their explanations all add up and cancel out neatly, but can let their minds roam free and devise whatever narrative they can dream up (the sillier the better) without anxiety or embarrassment.
_________________________________
PS: could some kind soul please explain how to add a static image to a post? I would have loved to feature the painting mentioned above. Can I upload an image here, as we did on ATS, and what should I do after that?

[ArMaP]

PS: could some kind soul please explain how to add a static image to a post? I would have loved to feature the painting mentioned above. Can I upload an image here, as we did on ATS, and what should I do after that?

The easiest way is to use the imgur button.



You just have to choose an image on your device and it does the rest (upload the image to imgur, create the link and paste in into the post).

[Astyanax]

The easiest way is to use the imgur button.
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/zIOY2Ie.gif]
[Image: https://i.imgur.com/ikDJAn0.gif]

You just have to choose an image on your device and it does the rest (upload the image to imgur, create the link and paste in into the post).

Thank you, ArMap