Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom

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.

Comments

forest

[Anonymous Coward]

If an atom falls in a forest and no one hears it, did it really make a sound?

Re:forest

[David_Hart]

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)

Re:forest

[TapeCutter]

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".

Re:forest

[tburkhol]

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.

Re:forest

[JMJimmy]

If it can't happen at the quantum level it's not sound it's vibration.

Re:forest

[jandersen]

We are talking about EXCITED atoms here - what they say is 'Wheeeee'.

phonon is a widely accepted term

[students]

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.

Re:phonon is a widely accepted term

[macraig]

... piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.

I saw what you did there, and it was pretty cool.

So,

[no-body]

where is the air carrying the sound - or is there a new definition of "sound of the newer kind"?

Re:10^5 slower?

[Nemyst]

10^-5 faster, evidently.

Where can I hear it?

[Arduenn6058]

If they claim it's sound, I want to hear it. Sound files, or it didn't happen.

For those, like me, who couldn't find it

[ksandom]

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

Re:10^5 slower?

[sFurbo]

[...] 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?

Re:Where's the link?

[SternisheFan]

I've heard it. It you listen real closely, you can hear it say a very tiny "ouch!"

Re:Where's the link?

[2fuf]

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

Re:10^5 slower?

[tehcyder]

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.