Slashdot Mirror
Listen To The Universe On Your iPod
ptorrone writes "The New York Times had a great story about Dr. Mark Whittle, a professor of astronomy at the University of Virginia who has taken the cosmic background radiation of the universe and made a series of sounds. The folks over at Engadget made the sounds available in MP3s so you can listen to them on your computer, iPod or whatever. Also, If you'd like to read more about Dr. Mark Whittle's work visit his site, there are a lot of presentations and information regarding Big Bang Acoustics."
"listen to the universo on your computer"
or
"listen to the universo on your MP3-player"
There is nothing in this story that requires mentioning an iPod. And frankly all the plugs on slashdot are getting a bit tiring.
I realize that not many of you will get to listen to these fine MP3s but let me tell you they are certainly nothing even close to music and certainly not something I would put on my iPod to listen to.
In fact, there was no reason to mentio the iPod at all.
If someone can get a bittorrent started, I'll leave it hosted all day at work here. At the moment, I can't even download the file though.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
I'm just wondering what program/algorithm the prof used to inturpret the radiation into "music" or something listenable?
Whoever dies with the most toys wins.
Some massaging of the data was needed...Dr. Whittle shifted the sounds to the human audible range, producing a chord like the sound of a jet engine. He used computer models to generate the cosmic chords from creation for the first million years and condensed them to five seconds.
I don't know much about sound, but this seems odd to me...if he's editing it this much, at what point is the guy just making his own music?
---
Adult Toys
No kidding. I have an iPod, I have a Mac, I love them both... but this has NOTHING AT ALL to do with Apple or the iPod! The mere fact that some noises are available in mp3 does no more to tie this story to the iPod than it does to any one of forty bazillion other mp3 players.
I can see it now... "Listen to the universe on your Rio Cali 128, Rio Cali 256, Rio Chiba 128, Rio Chiba 256, Rio Nitrus 128..."
If you get nervous, just remember that there are a few billion other people who don't really give a damn.
I have some experience in astronomy. I understand gravity and the cosmic microwave background and have gone through the calculations for a handful of Big Bang parameterizations.
That being said, I don't understand the purpose of this. Doing the acoustic analysis is fine and informative. Making an audible sound out of it is nonsense. It's almost entirely arbitrary, as the sound is not audible. It's the acoustic equivalent of a false color image. It really tells you nothing you didn't already know, it's just a pretty picture. Hardly worthy of all the press it is getting.
I don't believe that it improves people's understanding of fundamental phenomena. In fact, I'd say that, if anything, it gives them the impression that they understand more than they really do. And that's usually a bad situation.
The public just likes to have shiny objects dangled in front of them, they rarely (bother to) understand the significance of said objects.
Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
Case in point:
/.!) which is needlessly stuffed with advertising.
iPod is a brand name and a specific product, not a general category of device, and the comparison you're making here (with iPod compared to "backpack" or TV instead of "Jansport" or "Sony") illustrates just how far out of hand the brand-hype confusion has gotten. No-one (er, fewer people) would have complained if it said "Listen to the universe on your mp3 player." Of course, it could've just said "Listen to the universe," but that would've been too simple now wouldn't it...
Nothing about the iPod bothers me personally. What DOES bother me is media content (even emergent media like
My guess is: probably not. Something about the iPod just drives these people nuts.
Yeah, they don't have one.
Your examples are flawed. The main compaint people are having is not that they have been told to listen to this on an mp3 player, it's the mention of the iPod. To use your examples:
"Strap This Portable GPS Onto Your Backpack"
Becomes:
Strap This Portable GPS Onto Your Northface Backpack
"Watch The Star Wars Holiday Special On Your TV"
Becomes:
Watch The Star Wars Holiday Special On Your Sony TV
"New NASA-developed Lens Cleaner Keeps Glasses Dry In Rain"
Becomes:
New NASA-developed Lens Cleaner Keeps Ray-Bans Dry In Rain
Do you see the difference?
Backpack.
TV
Glasses
These are all common items that can describe a variety of specifically branded things. Like a Jansport Backpack, Ralph Lauren Glasses, Panasonic Television. What everyone is bitching about is the use of the specific brand named item. As posted above by someone else, if the blurb read "play in your MP3 player" there would be nothing to complain about. The issue arises in the specific product placement.
Unless we are moving along to a trend where "iPod" becomes a generic term such as "Xerox", or "Hoover", or "Google" that although refers to a specific brand (or product/service) it is equated with all items/services that perform the same function (i.e. Copy machine, Vacuum cleaner, Search Engine). It's all off topic really but the use of the brand name to describe a generic item is what Lindows/Linspire is fighting with Microsoft about. Even Google is fighting the use of their name generically.
Remember...
Specific branding leads to Trademarks.
Trademarks lead to control.
Control leads to Profit.
I read Slashdot for the
I'm very surprised your post didn't get modded down heavily. Every mention, even implied, of Slashdot being in bed with Apple is met by swift punishment, lest the truth of inline marketing be known to the Slashbots. Watch me as I get moderated into oblivion!! I'll die with my boots on!!! :)
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
I'm always torn about trying to explain science to the masses, since they're clearly too dumb/uninterested to ever truly understand.
Have you ever considered that few people would want to listen to someone who starts out with that attitude about them?
I work with a project that places cosmic ray detectors in schools. The goals are both scientific and educational. I have had school security people drop by after their shift to talk and learn more about what we're doing. This - making science accessible and interesting to people - is one of the most rewarding parts of my work. You might be surprised how much "the average joe" can grasp, given the opportunity and the right resources.
Is it worth it to only give them half the facts?
No one is dishing out half-truths. All the relevant information is there. In the original article it clearly states:
I have never seen a similar presentation that didn't include some explanation of how it was done and what the relationship to the original data is.
It seems to me like you are asking, "Is it worth trying to disseminate interesting science even though it might be only partially understood?" To that my answer is that getting some of the information across is enough to make science outreach a worthwhile excercise.
I think it is more important to find creative and interesting ways of engaging people in science than making sure they've got all the facts straight right away. After all, if they you can get someone's interest, they will be motivated to learn more, and then any original misconceptions can be disspelled. If you start out expecting people to learn science by picking up the nearest Astrophysical Journal, it just won't happen.
Don't forget, it's legislators who only understand half the facts that cause most of the problems that
Again - more information, not less, is the answer. There's nothing wrong with presenting data any way you feel like it, as long as you explain what you did. If more scientists were working to publicize their research like this guy is, maybe everyone, politicians included, would realize that science is not something which is the exclusive domain of the specialists in ivory towers. When science is accessible, I think people are more likely to feel that it is of true value, and hence more willing to fund it with their tax dollars.