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.

61 of 100 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Re:forest by jandersen · 2014-09-12 00:24 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  We are talking about EXCITED atoms here - what they say is 'Wheeeee'.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Re:forest by sgt_doom · 2014-09-12 06:17 · Score: 1
  
  Naaah. . just OMG, over and over and over . . . .
11. 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.
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 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
4. 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).
5. 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.
6. 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.
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?
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 viperidaenz · 2014-09-11 16:10 · Score: 1
  
  15
  10 xor 5 = 15
  1010 xor 0101 = 1111
3. 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?
4. 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.
5. 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
6. 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.
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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"?
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 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 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.
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 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.
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 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).
2. 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).
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?
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.
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.
"sound a single atom makes when it is excited" by marsu_k · 2014-09-12 02:58 · Score: 1

Was it this?
Re:um, ok. by OakDragon · 2014-09-12 03:14 · Score: 1

Maybe if it's a noble gas.

--
Dark Reflection
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..."
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!
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.