Slashdot Mirror


Big Bang Really a Big Hum

benna writes "The New Scientist reports, 'The Big Bang sounded more like a deep hum than a bang, according to an analysis of the radiation left over from the cataclysm. Physicist John Cramer of the University of Washington in Seattle has created audio files of the event which can be played on a PC. "The sound is rather like a large jet plane flying 100 feet above your house in the middle of the night," he says.' Apparently the idea for the project came from an 11 year old."

15 of 452 comments (clear)

  1. Big Bang? by captainclever · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sound doesn't travel thru space (a vacuum) right... so how can you hear the big bang?

    --
    Last.fm - join the social music revolution
    1. Re:Big Bang? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, but the medium would be very dense, so the speed of sound would be high. And, if the soundwaves were longer, they *wouldn't* destructively interfere except at very specific wavelengths. You'd get a phasey, comb-filter effect - rather like a jet plane going overhead.

    2. Re:Big Bang? by 4of12 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...sound vibrations...

      Hmmm, make a note for Human Species 2.0 design specs:

      • coat eardrums with metallized layers to pick up EM waves instead of just acoustic pressure waves,
      • get finger tips metallized with electrochemical charging so hand-waving arguments are adequate communication
      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    3. Re:Big Bang? by yourmom16 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ah, but the medium would be very dense, so the speed of sound would be high.

      no the speed of sound is the square root of the bulk modulus divided by the density, so high density means sound moves slower. However if it did move faster it would mean low wavelengths correspond to even higher frequencys.

      And, if the soundwaves were longer, they *wouldn't* destructively interfere except at very specific wavelengths.

      Without taking into account the uncertainty principle, They *would* destructively interfere except at certain wavelengths. When the wave hits the boundary and is reflected it then interferes with other parts of the wave, which are out of phase, they continue to reflect back and forth until they are 180 degrees out of phase and you get destrictive interference.

      However with the uncertainty principle its more complicated. The uncertainty in the wave number (the wave number is 2 times pi divided by the wavelength) times the uncertainty in position (not really an uncertainty, this roughly describes the amount of space the wave takes up, the term comes from quantum mechanics) is at least 1/2. This leads to a wider range of wave numbers being possible(for the same reason spectral lines have thickness, however there it is best to use energy rather than wave number). Since we are talking about a very small amount of space being possible for the wave to take up this means the uncertainty in the wave number is very high, meaning any wave number, and thus any wavelength, is possible.

      --
      "We have got to make Stan understand the importance of voting, because he'll definitely vote for our guy." - South Park
  2. Ommmm... Yoga by 3Suns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In Yoga, the mantra "Om" (or Aum) is supposed to represent the sound the universe makes. The "vibration of life" as it were. Those old yogis were really ahead of their time! Ommmmmmmmmmm...

    --

    -3Suns

    ~~~~
    The Revolution will be Slashdotted
  3. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It's a hypothesis, just like the Big Bang itself. There's no real way to "prove" it, except inventing a time machine. People don't seem to get what science is all about. No-one can ever be 100% sure of a theory. In the case of the Big Bang:

    1. We observe that things seem to be moving away from eachother pretty rapidly.
    2. We note that if things are moving away from eachother, it's quite likely they all started out in the same place. So we formulate the Big Bang hypothesis.
    3. We go out and look to see if our new hypothesis can predict any interesting things, like star formation or black holes, or whether it fits nicely with other theories like Relativity, for which we already have compelling evidence.
    4. We do experiments to test these predictions. An experiment can also be an observation, in the sense that the entire universe can be viewed as one big continual experiment about which we can record results.

    So, it seems the Big Bang is about the best model we have of universe formation at the current time. So by applying other physics principles we might be able to estimate what it sounded like. True, this is in a sense unprovable, so I agree that we can't really reach step 4, but it's interesting nonetheless.

    Scientists (Personally, I'm just an amateur these days) have great difficulty getting people to understand this distinction. These wackos say things like PROVE EVOLUTION OR I DECLARE IT WRONG!. The point is, you can't prove it, and any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.
  4. the humming chicken and the egg by splateagle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK so as 50 people have already pointed out, sound can't exist in space because sound waves are vibrations and there are no air molecules in space for a 'sound' to vibrate, but has it occured to anyone else yet that there wasn't any space for this sound to exist in either?

    If the big bang was the creation of the universe (aka everything), then it happened not in empty space, but in nothing so how is it even remotely meaningful to talk about the sound of the big bang when the event itself was (at the time) all that existed - there was nothing for it to make a sound into other than itself,

    so what we're really talking about isn't the sound of the big bang at all but the frequency at which it is thought to have been resonnating? which that humming sound (I'd already heard it on Radio 4 when the Today programme ran this story this morning) doesn't really illustrate very well since our ears aren't sophisticated enough to hear 90% of it.

    surely it would make more sense to look at a waveform diagram of this than turning it into a funny noise...

    1. Re:the humming chicken and the egg by Darby · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK so as 50 people have already pointed out, sound can't exist in space because sound waves are vibrations and there are no air molecules in space for a 'sound' to vibrate, but has it occured to anyone else yet that there wasn't any space for this sound to exist in either?

      As 50 people have been refuted and corrected but you still don't seem to get it here goes:

      All the matter in the universe was packed together. *That is a freaking medium through which sound can move*

      This was done over a time period of over 700,000 years of the expansion of the universe.
      *That is the space in which the vibrations occur*

      Note: there is so much stuff that the matter density was still pretty high after this period of expansion.

      That was said a crapload of times already.
      Cripes.

  5. Re:Something wrong in the article? by MSBob · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Expansion of the universe is not a physical movement through space. It is a rate of change of the physical properties of space ie. space is stretching or to be more precise, light shifts more to the red as it travels now than it did fifteen billion years ago.

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  6. Re:Location by Ianoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Standing outside the universe is not really something you can do. If indeed the universe is bounded, it's most likely not in our traditional three dimensions. Latest research indeed indicates that it just goes on and on looping around on itself (in all three directions, the bending is in higher order dimensions), so if I lift off the Earth in my rocket ship and travel in a straight line in any direction, I will eventually end up back at Earth on the opposite side (or at least where Earth happened to be when I left for my trip).

    Although we have no theories about what might be "outside" the universe, it's pretty impossible to form any theories because we can't see it, we have zero evidence that anything outside the universe exists, and if we did go there, perhaps our physical laws (unique to our universe) may well have no meaning.

    If there is nothingness outside the universe, it does not mean a big black void. Nothingness is not something you can stand around in. Nothingness means NOTHINGNESS, no time, no length, no height, no breadth, no nothing. It doesn't exist. Not existing is not the same as being empty, unfortunately true nothingness is not a concept our human minds can deal with because our monkey ancestors never encountered it in their day-to-day lives.

  7. Amazing.... by AgentGray · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one was there to listen to it, but we've proven it was a hum. Let alone, we've never proved that there was a big bang to begin with.

    People will believe what they hear if they hear it over and over and over and over and over...

    No, I didn't intend to troll...I won't post any replies to this post.

    --
    "Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely."
  8. Re:Faster than the speed of light? by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Space itself streched, the matter did not move apart. Think of a ballon with dots on it, as you inflate the balloon, the dots move apart due to the stretching of the medium they are embedded in. There are no constraints that we know of on the speed that space can stretch at.

    Ah! Now I understand warp drive technology. It is simply a method of partially relaxing a selected region of current space from its stretched state to a state that is more like its original condition. Hummm, it will require developing some warp field coils to contain the energy released in relaxation until it can be bled off into somebody's power grid, but that's just a SMOE (small matter of engineering).

    (Now where did I put the US Patent Office address?)

  9. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    any scientist will regard such things just as the best model based on some compelling evidnece, but will never put blind faith in it.

    There's ample historical evidence to disprove this theory, unfortunately. Many scientists get tied to particular theories and cannot be dissuaded from them. In the face of evidence that appears to contradict their theories, they try to find ways to discredit the evidence or demonstrate through some logical sleight of hand that it does fit their theory. Or sometimes they just ignore it.

    This is because scientists are people and people are imperfect. However, science as a whole is pretty effective at discarding bad theories, even if scientists aren't. It just takes a generation or two.

    It's also important to remember that bad theories, once established, do not die until a theory that is clearly better comes along. Until then, the bad theory is kept, and patched to fit the evidence.

    Science is a fine process for understanding the observable world, but it's a good idea to understand its limitations as well as its strengths. One must be skeptical of skepticism :-)

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  10. Re:The sound of one hand clapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wow.

    All of this creationism hot air. But on Slashdot? Isn't this a technodweeb's paradise? A science geek's home?

    Whenever a debate on evolution springs up on the net, does some appointed sentinel of the far right ring the clarion call of Christian Fundamentalism and call forth a vanguard of babbling halfwits running to the scene of the crime to proclaim The Truth?

    I'm really sorry. Mod me troll, mod me flamebait. I know it is no good to throw a pail of water on the idea of commentary on a website devoted to comments. But this is Slashdot, isn't it? We believe in science and tech here, no?

    Look, some guidelines for non-creationists, as I see it, for whatever it is worth:

    Don't talk to them.

    PLEASE! Don't take the bait! They only relate babbling pits of tomfoolery to your mind. You can not reason with them! Every pound of logical heft you hurl in their direction will be replied with immediately by 10 pounds of so much clangityclank of the brain that you will only be left dumbfounded by the psychology of it all. The point is to not engage them. Because engaging them will not allow their ideas to die the ignoble historical death their ideas deserve. The dustbin of history must not be disturbed, as it is already disturbed enough as it is. The more you try to persuade them to reason, the more you breathe life into a sinking ship. Your pleas for reason will only be replied with with flim flam.

    They mean well, and that is their problem. But they can't get their brains past a bad idea. They must justify it, by any means possible. So the harder and harder you blow against them, the harder they hold their cloak of belief. Stop blowing, let time and solitude relax their grips on their insanity.

    I hear some primitive tribespeople fear having their pictures taken because they think the camera steals a bit of their soul. So if they don't see a camera, they don't get excited. And when their backwards beliefs are not challenged, they live peaceful, harmless lives. In other words, don't show creationists cameras. Get it?

    After all, Al Qaeda is nothing more than a Muslim Fundamentalist backlash against the "decadent West." New ideas are dangerous. Progress is disturbing to some people. Some do not accept new, and better ideas. They instead cling to old, crazy ones and get very defensive about it. They frame it in absolutes, that evolution goes against God, for example. Evolution does not go against God. Science is not allied against religion. Any forward-thinking religious person can incorporate evolution into their world-view without evolution challenging their beliefs. It will, in fact, enrich their understanding of the world, deepen the mystery of life by making more clear the complexity of it all, and therefore, eventually, reaffirm their belief in God. But all of this assumes an open mind. Unfortunately, there are a lot of closed ones.

    Don't show creationists cameras!

    Leave them to their strange ways. Left in peaceful backwards isolation, they will eventually go the way of the Dodo, no irony intended. Right now their numbers are too large and the voraciousness of their passion too disturbing in the USA to be considered harmless. They are quite harmful, to the education and intelligence of all of our children. Give it time, many years, and they will fade away into history. Someday, decades from now, creationism will sound almost cute and harmless, like we laugh at the Spanish Inquisition in Monty Python skits.

    Until then, they are just a massive pain in the ass. Please, ignore them! Here on Slashdot, and in the rest of your life. Your intentions are good in trying to challenge them in honest debate, but please, just walk away from them. There is no winning, just lots of hot air for you to inhale. ;-P

  11. Re:I keep telling people... by rpresser · · Score: 2, Insightful

    X-Wing fighter pilots have never been proven to be capable of thinking.