Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom

Posted by timothy on Thursday September 11, 2014 @02:59PM from the golf-clap-defined dept.

Jason Koebler writes Researchers at Columbia University and Sweden's Chalmers University of Technology say that they have, for the first time, "captured" the sound a single atom makes when it is excited—a single "phonon," as it were. So, why do this? For one, the team wanted to simply see if it could capture the softest sound ever made, which is certainly a noble goal. But, secondly, the researchers wanted to explore the quantum nature of sound. Photons have always been used in quantum experiments, but they're pretty hard to manipulate because they're so fast. Phonons move 10^5 slower and thus could make quantum communication easier.

100 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

SBD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:01 · Score: 0

I guess my SBDs aren't entirely silent after all.
1. Re:SBD by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:12 · Score: 1
  
  A first post that went ten hours without being modded. I do not think I've ever seen that before.
2. Re:SBD by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2014-09-12 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  Single atom says:
  "Help! I'm trapped in the four-dimensional space-time string, isolated from the 12-dimentional multiverse!"
  
  --
  "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
  Never been known to fail..."
forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:03 · Score: 2, Funny

If an atom falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?
1. Re:forest by flyneye · 2014-09-11 15:59 · Score: 1
  
  Not until I can load the .wav into any number of samplers/editors/loopers and determine it for myself.
  Vapor-sound carries about as much weight as Uncle Louies fish "this damned long" caught when no one was there with a camera.
  For all I know, it's just some bullshit to stir up funding. I suspect that of a lot of "studies", also several fantastic experiments, loads of papers, several theses and more than one branch of science in general.
  Produce the sound or quit sounding off about it. I'm still waiting for lead to transmute to gold, in claims far older.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
2. Re:forest by David_Hart · 2014-09-11 16:51 · Score: 2
  
  If an atom falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?
  No... by it's very definition a sound is something that can be heard. According to the article, the vibrations that are made cannot be heard, just measured at some infinitesimal level. Perhaps quantum physics has a different definition of the word sound. But if you expect to hear the pitter patter of little atoms, you, and I, would be sorely disappointed... at least until they figure out how to scale it up to a 10,000 watt quantum sound system.... (grin)
3. Re:forest by TapeCutter · 2014-09-11 17:22 · Score: 2
  
  I'm still waiting for lead to transmute to gold
  You can do that nowadays, it's the reason why nuclear power is sometimes called "The philospohers stone".
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
4. Re:forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  at least until they figure out how to scale it up to a 10,000 watt quantum sound system
  I, for one, am eagerly awaiting pew pew lasers!
5. Re:forest by Dahamma · 2014-09-11 20:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, this.
  If this is all about an excited atom causing other atoms around it to move in a chain reaction (which is what we already know eventually causes our ear drums to vibrate, get converted to neurological signals to the brain and perceive "sound") then it pretty much seems like the most ridiculous waste of time and money in an experiment of which everyone knew the outcome I have heard of in a long while. So they built a super-sensitive electronic ear drum - big deal. This is not physics research, it's engineering a cool sensor.
6. Re:forest by tburkhol · 2014-09-11 22:51 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If this is all about an excited atom causing other atoms around it to move in a chain reaction (which is what we already know eventually causes our ear drums to vibrate, get converted to neurological signals to the brain and perceive "sound") then it pretty much seems like the most ridiculous waste of time and money in an experiment of which everyone knew the outcome I have heard of in a long while.
  I disagree. The macroscopic phenomenon of sound comes from vast numbers of atoms acting in aggregate, and their effect dissipates rapidly as the initial energy is spread across more and more atoms. That can't happen at the quantum level. These folks suggest that, at a small enough level, the interaction becomes quantized, such that "sound" energy might transfer from one atom to exactly one other atom. ie, that the "billiard ball" model of atoms bouncing off each other can be reduced to a quantal exchange of energy very much like fluorescence resonance transfer.
  Clearly, not a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song (if there is a good way to listen to the latest Katy Perry song), and pretty clearly not the ordinary definition of sound as a subjective phenomenon. If you're a physicist, trying to explain your study of quantal energy exchange among atoms to the lay press, "sound" is probably a pretty good metaphor.
7. Re:forest by JMJimmy · 2014-09-12 00:06 · Score: 2
  
  If it can't happen at the quantum level it's not sound it's vibration.
8. Re:forest by jandersen · 2014-09-12 00:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  We are talking about EXCITED atoms here - what they say is 'Wheeeee'.
9. Re:forest by AlabamaCajun · 2014-09-12 00:34 · Score: 1
  
  I thought Eve fell in the forest.
  
  Oh, though you said Adam in some Garden.
  Anyway, according to my wife it was atoms fault.
10. Re:forest by drainbramage · 2014-09-12 00:46 · Score: 1
  
  You might want to read up on the ground breaking research by Dr. Wonhan Clapping.
  
  --
  No brain, no pain.
11. Re:forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 00:49 · Score: 0
  
  No... by it's very definition a sound is something that can be heard
  No, sound is defined as a type of pressure wave, which is why you can talk about ultrasonic stuff at frequencies well beyond any animals hearing. And the same waves can be found in other situations, like ion acoustic waves in plasma that get called sound waves for short, or extension of the name to things like second sound in liquid helium.
12. Re:forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  If . . .
  
  That's where you went wrong.
13. Re:forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 05:49 · Score: 0
  
  If an atom falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?
  Not until I can load the .wav into any number of samplers/editors/loopers
  Meh... too late. Some guys messing about with a sampler have already captured the sound of the atom splitting.
14. Re:forest by sgt_doom · 2014-09-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Naaah. . just OMG, over and over and over . . . .
15. Re:forest by judoguy · 2014-09-12 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  In the same way that light isn't light if no one sees it? I disagree.
  
  --
  Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
16. Re:forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Note that transmuting gold to lead is much easier.
what did the phonon day? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:04 · Score: 0

Kaka kaka kaka kaka kow...
1. Re: what did the phonon day? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 21:18 · Score: 0
  
  Opie? Is that you?
One Atom? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:06 · Score: 0

It has come to my attention that I like the night life. I like to boogie (to the disco ride). Oh yeah. Yeah. I shall keep you further informed as I find out more. Stay tuned fellow slashdot maven(s).
Translation by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:18 · Score: 0

We did it because it was fucking awesome.
I felt a tiny disturbance in the Force... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:19 · Score: 1

I felt a tiny disturbance in the Force, as if a single voice suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something insignificant has happened.
phonon is a widely accepted term by students · 2014-09-11 15:32 · Score: 5, Informative

When the summary puts the word in quotes it implies it is not the standard term for a quantum of sound, which it is.
Measurement of single phonons is actually well established. I have done it several times. The paper actually describes a piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.

--
Simon's Rock College
1. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by Takahashi · 2014-09-11 15:49 · Score: 1
  
  I think it's in quotes because it's not an established word for people outside your(physics?) discourse community.
2. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by macraig · 2014-09-11 16:28 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  ... piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.
  I saw what you did there, and it was pretty cool.
3. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 17:16 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure that if they had used Monster cables in the experiment, the captured sound would have been even softer.
4. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by BetterThanCaesar · 2014-09-11 18:40 · Score: 1
  
  If one wants to put emphasis on a non-established term, then maybe the <em> tag is more suitable than quotes. One might even link to an explanation of the word.
  
  --
  "Stop failing the Turing test!" -- Dilbert
5. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by geogob · 2014-09-11 19:38 · Score: 1
  
  Every one who followed a lecture on solid state physics should know what a phonon is. And I mean a first year lecture, not one of those fancy specialization.
  This implies a lot of people never heard of it... but also that a lot of people did (or should have).
6. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by geogob · 2014-09-11 19:40 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly correct. In addition, a believe the commenter wanted to point out that it IS an established term, albeit one not often used in the context of quantum physics.
7. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by gstoddart · 2014-09-12 00:14 · Score: 1
  
  So, I've never heard of a phonon. But I'm not in physics.
  What I am laughing at is that they "captured" the sound ... they've almost gone full on Dr. Evil air quotes ... Mini Me, stop humping the "laser". Honest to God! Why don't you and the giant "laser" get a fricken room for God's sakes?
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
8. Re:phonon is a widely accepted term by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:02 · Score: 0
  
  It's quite close to IT, since Si isn't emitting any light without a phonon being involved.
Slim Pickens by avgjoe62 · 2014-09-11 15:41 · Score: 1

I now have this image of the scientists hearing "Yeeee-hah" as the atom slams into another atom, splitting it, while waving it's tiny little cowboy hat...

--
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
1. Re:Slim Pickens by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  For some reason I want to go watch Who framed Roger Rabbit
And the sound of an excited single atom is... by Maxo-Texas · 2014-09-11 15:41 · Score: 1

Bwah bow chicky bow bow, bwah bow chicky bow bow!
(alternatively, "Hey baby, I'm excited! Let's share some electrons and get covalent!")

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
10^5 slower? by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-09-11 15:42 · Score: 1

That's a new one. What does it mean?

--
Mostly random stuff.
1. Re:10^5 slower? by Nemyst · 2014-09-11 16:00 · Score: 2
  
  10^-5 faster, evidently.
2. Re:10^5 slower? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 16:03 · Score: 0
  
  Meaning 100,000 slower, not unlike a 1/2BTU_barbecue compared to your own.
3. Re:10^5 slower? by viperidaenz · 2014-09-11 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  15
  10 xor 5 = 15
  1010 xor 0101 = 1111
4. Re:10^5 slower? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  It means it travels at c/100000.
  I hate when people say that something is "3 times slower," as if that means anything. I know what they are trying to say, but the correct way to express it is "one-third the speed," or "one-third as fast." For some reason, everyone else ~could care less~, ~irregardless~ of how wrong they are.
5. Re:10^5 slower? by sFurbo · 2014-09-11 19:21 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  [...] as if that means anything. I know what they are trying to say,[...]
  If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
6. Re:10^5 slower? by CSMoran · 2014-09-11 20:05 · Score: 1
  
  I hate when people say that something is "3 times slower," as if that means anything. I know what they are trying to say, but the correct way to express it is "one-third the speed," or "one-third as fast."
  Just imagine "slowness", measured in s/m, is the reciprocal of "speed". Three times slower means its slowness is three times bigger compared to the reference, thus it's 1/3 of its speed. Worth making a fuss of?
  
  --
  Every end has half a stick.
7. Re:10^5 slower? by tehcyder · 2014-09-11 22:59 · Score: 1
  
  Most people don't use fractions in their everyday speech (except for half and quarter, I suppose).
  Speaking English is not the same as writing maths.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
8. Re:10^5 slower? by tburkhol · 2014-09-11 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  If you know what they mean, than it means something. Why are you complaining about language not living up to your arbitrary standards when it performs its purpose, to confer meaning?
  Because that kind of arglebargle obfuscates their message. Just because the slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe, does not necessarily make the borogroves all mimsy.
  There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information.
9. Re:10^5 slower? by tehcyder · 2014-09-11 23:13 · Score: 2
  
  There's a place for poetry, and a place for clearly stated information
  There's also a place in between for perfectly acceptable general non-scientific language.
  A lot of people on slashdot like to pretend that every article and comment should be composed to the same standards as a formal scientific paper. Which is silly.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
10. Re:10^5 slower? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  Same explanation as yesterday you dumb ass.
11. Re:10^5 slower? by AlabamaCajun · 2014-09-12 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  It's just a way of defining that the waveform is emitted at a fraction of the speed of the phoTon.
  This may also relate to the waveform that the photon travels at. Thus it's light frequency is governed by the collective frequency of the atoms in the element that is excited to emit photons. (Laypersons terms) This changes my perspective on why the color LEDs emit depends on the chemicals used.
12. Re:10^5 slower? by Existential+Wombat · 2014-09-12 17:09 · Score: 1
  
  15
  10 xor 5 = 15
  1010 xor 0101 = 1111
  F that.
Where's the link? by luckymutt · 2014-09-11 15:50 · Score: 1

Link to an Ogg for Flac file? We want to hear it, not just read about it.
1. Re:Where's the link? by kolbe · 2014-09-11 16:18 · Score: 1
  
  Nope! Nothing to hear since it was "an artificial atom". Meaning, they were not really even listening in the first place, but rather determining if it could be done.
2. Re:Where's the link? by SternisheFan · 2014-09-11 19:46 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard it. It you listen real closely, you can hear it say a very tiny "ouch!"
3. Re:Where's the link? by 2fuf · 2014-09-11 21:36 · Score: 2
  
  FTA:
  > this is the part in the story where we'd link to a clip of the atom's audio, but it's so soft that it's not even audible
  Apparently the meaning of the word "capture" has a different meaning Sweden
So, by no-body · 2014-09-11 15:52 · Score: 2

where is the air carrying the sound - or is there a new definition of "sound of the newer kind"?
1. Re:So, by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:59 · Score: 0
  
  You know sound also travels in a solid or a liquid, right? Their artificial atom is probably on a solid-state substrate that also includes all the electronics...
And for their next trick by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 15:57 · Score: 0

They'll measure the IQ of a Space Nutter!
as Radioactive man says.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 16:09 · Score: 0

Up and atom.
What's the sound of by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 16:23 · Score: 0

one atom clapping?
um, ok. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 16:27 · Score: 0

"which is certainly a noble goal"
Yeah. Real noble.
1. Re:um, ok. by OakDragon · 2014-09-12 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe if it's a noble gas.
  
  --
  Dark Reflection
2. Re:um, ok. by ClickOnThis · 2014-09-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  Typo. TFS meant Nobel goal.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sounds like mystical BS by gweihir · 2014-09-11 16:29 · Score: 1

"Phonon", my ass. Is this "science" targeted at idiots? Really, we do not need any more BS masquerading as science.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
1. Re:Sounds like mystical BS by DirePickle · 2014-09-11 16:49 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
2. Re:Sounds like mystical BS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  ...errr.... perhaps you thought you were funny when you typed that? Turns out you were indeed the target.
3. Re:Sounds like mystical BS by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 17:45 · Score: 0
  
  Wouldn't even waste my time. Look at gweihir's posting history, he's a troll.
4. Re:Sounds like mystical BS by ClickOnThis · 2014-09-12 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  I think DirePickle was aiming his post at others besides gweihir.
  BTW, somebody please mod DirePickle's post as Informative.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
You know the rules by atari2600a · 2014-09-11 17:18 · Score: 1

Upload the donk or it's debonked.
Where can I hear it? by Arduenn6058 · 2014-09-11 17:19 · Score: 2

If they claim it's sound, I want to hear it. Sound files, or it didn't happen.
1. Re:Where can I hear it? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 18:10 · Score: 0
  
  Fine, there are devices that generate 15 MHz sound in steel to measure thickness. Are you going to argue it's not sound until you can hear it? Is UV not light because you can't see it?
2. Re:Where can I hear it? by SternisheFan · 2014-09-13 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  It's a low D note.
Shroedinger's Phonon by thisisauniqueid · 2014-09-11 17:20 · Score: 1

Q: If an atom slams into another atom in the forest, and nobody is around to hear it, did it make a phonon or not? A: Yes.
Sound in what medium? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 17:33 · Score: 0

Wouldn't it sound entirely different depending on medium?
For those, like me, who couldn't find it by ksandom · 2014-09-11 18:55 · Score: 2, Funny

For those, like me, who couldn't find it in the article; I speculate it sounded like this "WHEEEeeeeeeEEEEeeeeEEEEeeeEEEEeeeeEE!"

--
Funnyhacks - Wierd, unusual, and fun hacks
1. Re:For those, like me, who couldn't find it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 22:59 · Score: 0
  
  Funny. I am betting that it sounds like a bunch of radio static.
2. Re:For those, like me, who couldn't find it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 23:00 · Score: 0
  
  *sigh* I freakin' hate articles that don't have the stuff they are talking about... "Oh hey do you like candy? Oh too bad we're fresh out? But we still have on more... too bad Jimmy has dibs on it.. wait pal we might just have one more ... oh wait nvm that's a bug".
3. Re:For those, like me, who couldn't find it by ArcadeMan · 2014-09-12 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  Or websites with a huge branding logo, a photo of the author and 50 banners on the page but zero photo of what they're talking about, like the Internet is a text-only medium. What a joke.
  
  --
  Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Do I emit a sound? by OneSizeFitsNoone · 2014-09-11 19:04 · Score: 1

I am excited myself at reading of singing excited atoms.
Sounds like... by RivenAleem · 2014-09-11 22:07 · Score: 1

It was said to sound ominously like clapping.
1. Re:Sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  It was said to sound ominously like clapping.
  It was said to sound ominously like one hand clapping.
  FTFY.
Philosophical Point by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-11 22:59 · Score: 1

This concept also applies when scientists claim to "see" atoms in their electron microscopes. They are, in fact, just seeing their display screens. The data of science are now far removed from the senses, yet we still prefer to use sensual terms.
1. Re:Philosophical Point by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  This concept also applies when people claim to "touch" a tree with their hands. They are, in fact, just extrapolating from the repulsion of electron charges. That shit is far removed from the nervous system, yet we still prefer to make sense.
2. Re:Philosophical Point by Dogtanian · 2014-09-12 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  This concept also applies when people claim to "touch" a tree with their hands. They are, in fact, just extrapolating from the repulsion of electron charges. That shit is far removed from the nervous system, yet we still prefer to make sense.
  No- you're trying to be a smartass here, but it doesn't really work, because there isn't any more direct form of "touch"- i.e. the sensation- than that. Insofar as the sensation of "touch"- or the mechanism underlying it- has any meaning when you examine it at such a close, microscopic level, that *is* what "touching" is.
  
  This contrasts with the OP's example of scientists "seeing" on the screen on an electron microscope, where there quite obviously *is* a level of abstraction from directly seeing something (via the interaction of photons with the object and then one's own eyes). So, no- you didn't make a point.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
3. Re:Philosophical Point by JasonGoatcher · 2014-09-12 09:46 · Score: 0
  
  In a way, you made his point for him even as you disagreed. There's always going to be some level of abstraction somewhere. If it can be used to detect things, it's a sensory organ of some sort, though that would suggest just about any tool is a sensory organ of some sort.
4. Re:Philosophical Point by Dogtanian · 2014-09-13 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I accept what you're saying, but the point was that he mirrored the OP's comment in order to make a point- presumably- that this form of "seeing" was just as valid as seeing with the eyes, or rather that, if that wasn't seeing, then "touching" with the fingers wasn't "touching" either.
  
  But it doesn't work because putting "touching" in quotes implies that this isn't actually touching, when it *is* in effect the definition of touching- there's no more direct way you can "touch" something with your own fingers, and it's arguable whether it's meaningful to argue what constitutes touching below that scale.
  
  The "seeing" example quite plainly *was* more indirect, and that's the point I was making.
  
  --
  "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
How loud is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 00:10 · Score: 0

Technical details please. How loud is the sound of a single atom, and from there to sound so loud it pulls a vacuum, how many bits of audio resolution do we need to to fully capture the entire physical dynamic range of sound? (...and just because we can, in the digital domain, we should then add another few bits just to be sure).
But did they photograph it's O face? by Overzeetop · 2014-09-12 00:49 · Score: 1

It's one thing to know what the sound of a single excited atom is but, as they say on the internets - pics or it didn't happen.
Though, now that I think about it, I guess if it's just one atom, you're really more in the vein of Turning Japanese.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 01:24 · Score: 0

"Help meeeeee!!!!!"
Re:Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single A by ArcadeMan · 2014-09-12 02:05 · Score: 1

No, that's the sound produced by a single molecule.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
The sound of a single excited atom? by ArcadeMan · 2014-09-12 02:06 · Score: 1

What does it sound like when it's bored?

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
A little bit softer now... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-09-12 02:08 · Score: 1

> capture the softest sound ever made
Scientist 1: "Data incoming...recording...recording...got it!"
Scientist 2: "Ok, now amplify it. What does it sound like?!?!?"
Computer speaker: "Hssssss ssss sssI'm popular on Slashdot. Will you go out with me?"

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
For those, like me, who couldn't find it by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 02:55 · Score: 0

I thought it would be something like "OooooMmmmm..."
"sound a single atom makes when it is excited" by marsu_k · 2014-09-12 02:58 · Score: 1

Was it this?
The grasshopper recorded it... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 04:52 · Score: 0

...and it was the sound of one hand clapping.
Soooo yesterday, dood. . . . by sgt_doom · 2014-09-12 06:17 · Score: 1

.. . . . . been there, heard it already!

Ooooommmmm . . . .ooooommmmmm. . . .ooooommmmm.. . .those atom sounds can be might tedious!
So this is why the Dalai Lama is not coming back.. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-12 07:09 · Score: 0

...they finally found the answer to what sound a single hand clap makes.
forest by Anonymous Coward · 2014-09-15 00:30 · Score: 0

If an atom falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?
If I fall in a forrest and no one is around to see me am I still embarrassed?