If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2018
- Answering the age old philosophical question, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Check out the video we did over on Alie's channel!
• Can Humans Be Objectiv...
Subscribe to NeuroTransmissions!
/ neurotransmissions
Hi! I'm Jade. Subscribe to Up and Atom for new physics, math and computer science videos every two weeks!
SUBSCRIBE TO UP AND ATOM / upandatom
Follow me @upndatom
INSTAGRAM: / upndatom
TWITTER: upndatom?lang=en
A big thank you to my AMAZING PATRONS!
Alan McNea, Daniel Tan-Holmes, Simon Mackenzie, Yoseph, Andrew Pann, Dave, Anne Tan, Todd Loreman, David, Susan Jones, Stephen Veitch, Dave Mayer, Renato Pereira, Simon Dargaville, Dean Madden, Noah McCann, Robert Frieske, Magesh.
If you'd like to consider supporting Up and Atom, head over to my Patreon page :)
/ upandatom
For a one time donation, head over to my PayPal :)
www.paypal.me/upandatomshows
Other videos you might like:
What is a Singularity, Exactly? • What is a Singularity,...
When to Think Less (According to Math) • The Accuracy Paradox -...
Y CN U R34D DIS? • Intro to Information T...
Music
www.epidemicsound.com/ - Věda a technologie
I just watched Alie's video and it's so much better than mine and I'm super jealous czcams.com/video/lf1wPcF-fXw/video.html
Up and Atom doesn't matter we'll love you more.
I noticed that as well. Scriptwriting into a story as Alie does takes a bit of practice. Or at least observing it once and learn it forever. Each their own style though.
And btw, I noticed one single air molecule here that had a slightly higher energy value, that might never result in any audible value but, still transferred enough energy from that fallen tree. Just luck that I noticed though.
I love you videos no matter what ☺️☺️
But your voice is much more comfortable to listen to
I've been thinking bout this questions since a kid but this is the first time someone else talked bout it.
I also get nervous when i feel observed.
😐hi
Lol
Act natural 🤣
You mean - all the time? ))
Seems like I am observed all the time🤣😄
@@grinreaperoftrolls7528 thanks🤣
Electron must be shy.
It has to obey the stupid rules of quantum society.
When no one's watching, he does whatever he wants.
Justin O'Brien ba dum tss
Justin O'Brien I'm seeing a lot of 42 lately.
The page I'm reading is 42
I look at my watch and it's 1:42:42 ( really WOW)
I got a reply in CZcams and it's from 42.
WTF?
Justin O'Brien that's evident.
😀
p Hs, as I know, there are not any stupid rules of quantum socity, but there is one rule that says that the Universe is non-contradictaryable. It means that if the observer looks at the result, where the electron went, then the picture woud be no interference pattern. But if the experiment with the information was taking place and the information was written, but then totaly destroyed as so as no observer can find the result anymore, on the picture would be an interference pattern. If you are confuced for that stupid trying to say my thoughts than I can find some materials about that, whose would be able to say it clear. wof.
Omg I'm on the flooring dying 😂 every time I hear that tree falling scream. This collab is so awesome!!!!
hahaha aww betty glad you appreciate!!
Y'all know each other? That's great. I've subscribed to all 3 of you. Didn't know you were friends!
Well, now I'm all freaked out at what things are doing when I'm not looking at them! *Looks suspiciously at pet fish*
hahaha 8)
Fish Murderer 😆
Thank you for teaching me that trees make anthropomorphic screaming sounds when they fall down. This channel is very educational.
1:00 When did this turn into a Vsauce video.
you forgot the question mark
Jorge C. M., you forgot the capital.
XD
@@canyadigit6274 Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you forget the capital yourself? Or do you view the auto generated text for @ing people as a valid start of a sentence?
It never did.
Or did it?
I've loved both sides of the collab so much!! I really want to make that falling tree sound effect to be made into a ringtone... That way if someone rings and I don't hear it, then I guess no one rang me 😈
Draw Curiosity Lol, that would be awesome!!
But how would you know if it didn’t ring, since it may only not ring when nobody’s around? 🙂
about that ringtone, I wanted a ringtone of the "sounds of deep space", so when someone calls me I can say, "it's a long distance call".....
Even if you define sound in such a way that it is not a sound unless it is heard (which I don't), there are always animals around to hear a falling tree, even if it is just insects.
Also, in the Shrodenger's cat experiment, the cat itself is an observer, so it will not be in a superposition of alive and dead. It could even be said that the Geiger counter that is set to release the poison gas is an observer, detecting whether radioactive decay has happened.
therealEmpyre which is why the schrodinger’s cat thought experiment is not actually claimed to be a true fact. It’s simply a tool to help the layman understand the basic idea of a superposition. Also the tree question is just phrased poorly. You are meant to assume that there are no hearing animals around at all.
@@jonispatented I'll argue that first, the tree falling and creating sound waves is a macrocosmic event. As such, it is pretty much impossible for it to not be observed - for example, the sound waves will move leaves.
Second, I'll argue that if we say "does a tree falling make a sound", then we are talking about something that happens _at the tree,_ and I'll claim that therefore the answer _must_ be "yes". If you want to talk about something happening in your brain, the verb to use isn't "make", it's "hear". The tree _makes_ a sound, which you then _hear._ (So my answer might not be applicable in every human language.)
Kai Henningsen I agree with your answer. That’s also my answer. It’s just not the correction I was making.
Not if humans drive em all to extinction AMIRIGHT?
@@KaiHenningsen I agree. The observer doesn't even have to be a living thing. Any device that records sound would detect the sound waves from the falling tree. My view of neural science sort of agrees with Ernest Rutherford. "All science is either physics, or it's stamp collecting."
circa 6:10
Well you had to mesure them in some way, we see through electro-magnetic waves for example, so the very thing used to dectect the particles IS the thing that determined the state, while before it was the screen.
what I'm saying is that the result changed not because we knowing where the particle went changed it (the electrons couldn't care less about who was looking at them), but because in order to mesure in the first place we had to do something to the electrons and THAT is what changed the thing.
It's like waking someone to see if they're sleeping or just have they're eyes closed... if you wake them they are definitely awake XD
Well, yes, but a detector only receives waves, right? Or do you mean the fact that the detector was there and it could reflect some waves which could interfere with electrons is enough?
Popular "science" tends to compare apple with orange, and tries to reach some sort of "conclusions"…but fails to remind people that it starts with a analogy.
The double slit experiment is fascinating... And I particularly love the Quantum Eraser as an extension of it; that just blows my mind. I'd be fascinated to see a video about that! :-)
Bore was INCORRECT...... (just a ban waggon everyone has jumped on from that time until now).mostly likely the other quantum theory of that time "the pilot wave theory" was probably heading towards the right direction.........
czcams.com/video/WIyTZDHuarQ/video.html
If I put the definition of sound aside, the new question that comes to my mind would be: is there an observation if no one is there?
In detail that would mean, does the air or the forest floor count as an Observer, since both of them are having an interaction with a falling tree?
Ive heard it and read it several different ways, but this is the very first explaination of the double slit experiment that I think pretty much anyone could understand. Very good job
Thanks for all the help with these concepts. It's been big. You are perfect!
"If you shoot a mime in the forest does he make a sound?"
Steven Wright
Ladies! This is the greatest video on the topic. Thank you for covering all the options and explaining it so well and comical.
Lol the edits and animations are golden😂😂😂
Good, quality educational video right here. Well done! I took Science as a subject in high school (Physical and Chemical) and allll these videos may be helpful for that :D
Your channel is so awesome!!! My 8 year-old son have watched them all and he has a notebook full of diagrams he made from them. You explain things in such a great way, keeping it fun and interesting! Kudos! More, more, more!!! :)
It was a great video.
I already knew about the double slit experiment, that's what got me curious about quantum mechanics in the first place. But the way you presented it with the context of trees was really appreciable. I have to tell you I never gave sound this much thought, as I did after watching this video. You literally changed my own reality.
I just have a question for you.
Can you tell me the exact method by which the detector detected the electrons in the experiment ? I mean they have to interfere with the electrons in some way to force them to collapse into a single state.
Sounds are energy, and even when nobody is there to hear it , the energy is still happening.
Your animations are lit. Especially from Niels Bohr
thank you :)
Agreed, sweet animations! How is it that you do your animations?
It makes sense in a way that measurement changes the result, if you consider that for particles to be measured they must be interacted with in some way; the detector is emitting or receiving something connected to the particles that physically alters their trajectory/behaviour
Great job as usual :)
It begs the question. If a politician speaks and no one is there to hear them. Is it still a lie :)?
Came to know regarding this experiment when I chance upon an episode of Dr Quantum many years back, it was such a great episode that no one is able to top it.
But today, I chance upon your video and found it to be better explained and more informative. Bravo to you! Keep up the good job
My interpretation to this problem is: If no one is there to see, hear or observe in any other way, does the tree fall at all? If yes, you can also assume it makes a sound (as long as sound is not defined as a sensation or brain function). If no, then, well... something that does not happen can not cause something.
I love your videos. I love them so much!!
Also, could you make a video about what information is in physics? What is it, where does it come from?
If there was once a tree observed to be standing in a forest and the next time it is observed it's laying on the ground.... Did it ever really fall?
3:15 - "We're essentially all living in our own virtual reality"
yessss I try to remember this whenever I am communicating with people :)
Yes, it depends on how you define "Sound" - but once you have defined sound the answer is true or false by definition. That is If you define sound as the soundwaves and ask the question does it make a sound - the answer by definition is yes. If you define sound as the quality a noise attains upon being heard - the answer by definition is no.
You cant have a wrong definition, but you can have bad definitions and good definitions. So what are the qualities of a good definition? The best definitions make it clearer what is going on and make communication easier. Looking at just those two definitions (there is any number of ways to define things) we can evaluate which makes things clearer. It may even be useful to keep the second definition of "sound" and make the first definition of the word "noise". Thereby rephrasing the answer"If a tree falls in the woods it makes a noise, but not a sound".
Any attempt to muddle definitions does not make for good/clear communication, especially when you want to talk about concepts like the wavicle duality.
Narul well u kinda miss the main point
I love how upset and angry the falling tree sounds and looks.
High on a mountain in the Alps beyond everyone's hearing, a ponderous tree succumbs to gravity. The tearing of lignin fibers and the subsequent crash of wood on rock and snow creates sound waves that strike a nearby overhanging cornice which falls. This starts an avalanche which flows down to the village below killing all inhabitants. What killed those people quantum electrons or classical sonic energy?
A very simplified explanation of a complex theory.....amazing .!!! Keep it up!!
Best Upandatom so far - great stuff.
Shrodinger's cat comes to mind. This is one of those "paradoxical" questions where the answer can be changed by changing the definitions of the words used in the question. We don't really learn much about sound or anything else when we get to the answer. Ten minutes of fog. "Because if you define ...." at about the 2-minute mark.
Hey, usually I love your videos but I am confused this time.
I have always learned that one must be very cautious about not using quantum physics to make a point about consciousness.
Schrodinger's cat thought experiment doesn't mean that any cat in a box is both dead and alive as long as no one is observing it. The cat is both dead and alive if, and only if, its state is determinated by that of a quantum particle (Schrodinger used the example of a poison activated by an electron when this electron is reaching a certain position if i remember well).
So it would be relevant for your tree if it was cut by a robot with a chainsaw activated by a quantum particle for example, but quantum physics doesn't answer the philosophical question of whether or not the sound exists if it is not heard.
Or maybe there is a point i have missed - i am not a physicist but have seen a certain amount of videos made by other physicists really warning about that biais, so...
This doodles are the best and your explanations are clear as water
I don't even know whether a tree fell or just decided to quietly lie down unless I'm there to observe what happens.
Based on evidence yes. I have seen a soundless video where a tree fell and the sound disturbed hundreds of birds. They heard a sound, I did not hear or interpret it. The birds were, in effect, a detector but one I didn't actively monitor
If anything is there that measures the sound ie if anything at all is affected by the soundwave, it is there. Like with the opera singer, to see if she hit the famous hi note, look for the broken glass afterwards.
So now lets assume a scientist shows up with a perfect infrared detector soon after the tree fell. Everything around the fallen tree that absorbed some of the sound should be radiating a slight amount of extra heat. In essence, anything affected by the sound when it occurs serves to measure the sound wave, and can theoretically show the sound was real, until consequences of the sound are utterly lost to the background noise.
Wouldn't the surrounding forest act as a system observing the sound waves created by the falling tree? The system may not be sentient, but it still has forces acted upon it and changes caused by those forces.
The wave function doesn't collapse if we don't hear the tree falling, so the tree makes and doesn't make a sound at the same time in a superposition state until silence comes back
22 seconds and done, I like it short and concise. ^^
Nice video. Thanks for bringing up the bit about what observation is. Met a few people who infer some sort of causal consciousness to the act of observation.
As an ecologist I may add that a forest is a complex ecosystem consisting of plants, fungi, bacteria and lots of animals, many of which have complex neurosystems including the ability to perceive sound. So if there is truly no one there to hear it, it's hardly a forest.
I get that we all eprcieve it differently depending on our situations et al but the air wave is still there the tree still makes a sound but the apparatus that receives the air wave modulates the sound ,no?Sort of like an FM signal being braodcast from a local radio station. it makes a sound regardless of whether or not any tuner is turned on to to hear it
The beginning killed me XD, loved the content of the video too!!!
Sound is a wave of compressed air or solid matter that propagates longitudinally. The sound is detected as noise if an animal is in its path and has the apparatus or organ like eardrum and brain to detect it.
It do make a sound. The vibration (sound) of air would be "felt" by the nearby trees (it is in a forest after all) , as would the ground vibrating from the impact. So it should even comply with the quantum definition given at 7:40.
No, i am not saying that trees can hear, but the soundwaves both in air and ground would be absorbed by nearby leaves, bark, needles and roots, enough for the nearby trees to count as observers, at least pr definition.
It's not a philosophical or physical question. It is a linguistical question. What does the word mean? Often words are poorly defined and the meaning has to be deducted. But in this case there will always be something to hear the sound, not necessarily human, so it does regardless of whether sound is understood as air pressure variation or sensory perception.
Lol. Your animations are always awesome.
Another fantastic video! Going to check out Alie's right now
If two of your favourite CZcamsrs agree on a collab at VidCon and no one's there to hear it, does it end up with two excellent videos?
Clearly the answer is a resounding YES!
haha I see what you did there ;)
so if nobody watches them, they would interfere with themselves and turn into 5 videos? or is my copenhagen interpretation wrong xD
the classic biologist vs physicist on sound . love it lol
Isn’t the question simpler. If the tree falls it makes the sound wave. It’s not small like an electron. The sound wave doesn’t work on a quantum level.
wonderful as usual! I could listen to an explanation to 1,000 explanations of the "double slit experiment" and love each and understand none. In this I follow Feynman. I will mosey over to the near science resource and thanks for the tip. BTW whats with the purple wrist band an your right hands? Or is it your left hands and thing just get switched because your back in Oz?
thank you so much Stephen! I was just at vidcon, a youtube conference and they gave us purple wristbands!
and yes, the acting was amazing!
The answer is YES. just for those that dont really understand how 'the measurement problem' works, it doesnt require observation from someone, just interaction, which can come from the other particles that its bonded to as a macroscopic, non-quantum state or even comes from its own non-local self interactions such as with the double slit experiment. this is the same type of thought experiment as the Shrodingers cat thought experiment. If fact, given the true quantum nature of reality its possible that it both makes and does not make a sound simultaniously, and that would be the case for a quantum scaled version of how sound works.
also sound is more of a pressure distribution so it kinda needs lots of particle interactions to actually be a thing, much like temperature does. So i really think this tree falling in the woods thing is kinda just a rehashed and annoying version of the already misinterpreted, but slightly less annoying Shrodinger cat experiment.
thanks for reading, please correct all my errors, CZcams community!
"observation" means interaction. It's not some camera just "Looking" at a particle. The detector interferes with the particlewave, and thus makes it collapse.
Hello, could you do a video with more information about what „the observer“ means? It is kind of mysterious and philosophical. Or not?
Yes, it does make a sound. Sound is defined in physics as you said. 1.41 - your guest is ignoring the accepted scientific definition to give a subjective definition based on various perceptions. She is also ignoring that these are shared perceptions that require a common definition. Inserting personal definitions over recognized definitions defeats the purpose of communication and leads to confusion.
The sound, in definition, is a vibration propagating across a medium, having a convenient frequency and loudness
I have a question. Does the wood body of an electric guitar matter, when it comes to sound, if the guitar is "electric (magnetic)"? You would think not, right?
Its a forest, so by definition there are lots of observers. You take the other trees away, you no longer have a forest.
I would sum it up this way, there is the sound and there is the perception of sound. The light emitted from a star exists, we can then perceive it. Seems a little ridiculous to try and say light doesn't exist if it occurs outside our ability to detect it. It is still em radiation either way.
Electrons: The original trolls
0:07
Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
I was alone in a forest when a tree fell. It groaned like a monster -- that sort of bowel-evacuating sound straight from your worst nightmares -- and then it cracked, like a monster had stepped on a huge log and snapped it like a twig. There was a crash like trees being swept aside by the monster that is about to eat you, and through the trees I saw the top of the tree land with majestic violence.
It took me a couple minutes to talk my lizard brain out of the complete panic it was in. It was a very strange feeling.
Show me a forest with no creatures capable of hearing, and I might believe the argument that the interpretation of the movement of air molecules is necessary. Then the argument would shift to whether the awareness of the other trees was adequate to count. You know, mycelium networks and all that.
The intro put a smile on my face. ☺️
:)
Ha-ha nice ending, the ' bye' was kind of sudden.
My version of the sound interpretation is that a "sound" as defined to human language is that there must be an emitter a medium and a receiver. So you cannot have 2 out of 3 or it doesn't fit the definition. If a person screams in space, does a sound occur or do we 'fill in' what we believe 'should' have happened. In the forest, only 2 ingredients of the definition are available. Only those creatures with 'ears', or the equivalent, will 'hear'. If there are none, then the waves (or vibrations) will start and eventually dissipate. No one will ever know. Like a triangle, with only 2 legs it is just an angle and will never contain 'area'. It needs all 3 to get its 'name' - triangle or in our case, 3 components for 'sound'.
Silly, question, Isn't the blank screen an observer as well though? Like it gathers information about the electron?
From Wikipedia. In physics, sound is a vibration that typically propagates as an audible wave of pressure, through a transmission medium such as a gas, liquid or solid
To consider a wave sound there's got to exist a sound detector that analizes it. In this case it is called a mechanical wave.
When you're falling in a forest, and there's no one else around do you ever really crash or even make a sound?
Is it the wavelengths from the observer being in an active state interfering with the particles, making them choose one form? I didn’t get that part
If you can claim that we can't know if the tree makes a sound, then you can equally truthfully claim that we do not know if the tree fell or that it even exists. The whole question is moot.
in 7:40 does this mean if I look at the particles hard enough
or let's say with some very precise camera without actually
without touching or interacting with them in any other way
does the wave function will still collapse.
when the pattern change due to the observer is not for the consciousness right? It is for the act of observe that requiere physical interactions with the particle like electricity that makes the particle behave different
I’m curious, How many electrons were fired and how many can be counted on the board thingy? Doesn’t the quantity on the board have to be at least double what was fired to prove it duplicated and interfered with itself since it was fired one at a time?
If it didn’t duplicate and interfere with itself doesn’t that mean there’s something invisible we can’t see all around us that behaves like a wave unobserved that the particles flow through rather than the particles themselves.
There are other ways of observing than hearing. So yes if it falls, that implies we have detected it falling somehow (otherwise how can we say it has fallen). If we haven't made a detection in any way we can only find out by observing the tree or something the tree has affected.
I can never make my mind up about these questions. I mean, it does produce sound, which exists but isn't perceived, rendering that sound pointless.
I like the mix of neuro-science in this one ! Also, I picked up Algorithms For Decision Making you recommended, it was a great read.
so glad you enjoyed it!
of course the bigger question is: "If a man speaks in the forest and there is no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?"
Nope, it's "if a woman speaks in a forest and there is no man to hear her, is she still told to be quiet?".
If there aren't any women around, he'll find peace and sanity
Wonderful video!!! some really interesting stuff in there....
What happens if the observer is far enough away that it didn't observe the electrons until AFTER they hit the second wall. Will it still count as observing, the electron? How would the electron know if it was GOING to be observed before it gets observed.
The fact that (in the double slit experiment) "This doesn't seem to make sense" got interpreted as "The particle somehow cares about whether it is measured or not" instead of "If I derive information from the particle, I am not 'just measuring' it, but actively interfering, therefore I should expect its behaviour to change" is still wild to me. (I had this pointed out to me, I didn't even notice the problem on my own..)
For the particle to "care" about observation, the observation would have to actually interact with the particle.
If you postulate that somehow "gaining information" about the particle changes the behaviour, why don't you take the simpler explanation that the measuring apparatus is interfering with the way it would behave without it. If you don't attach "little mind entities" to the particles, this is the obvious conclusion.
( I notice I need to revisit my understanding of the theory, because my certainty of correct representation has fallen below 90% here..)
If you are interested in more, the many worlds interpretation actually does make more sense than the whole idea of quantum collapse. If you have trouble following along, I recommend suspending your concept of "this world has to be the only world" for a while, see if that helps, and afterwards re-examine that concept. If anyone reads this, I may be sufficiently motivated to look for the link for it, but there is a great intuitive explanation out there. hmu
My takeaway was that I should consider that it doesn't "make a sound" because it makes a sound, doesn't make a sound, colorfully launches to space...etc. all until it is observed.
So HOW did they detect which slit the electron went through? Because I guess they must use something that interacts with the electron. So surely that would kick it off its path and thus disturb the pattern. If so, this means its not the act of observing as such... its the magnetic/ electrical interaction that causes the "observer" effect????
can you please tell me which software do you use to make your animation?
Great video really tied a couple of concepts together for me, Question if the which way detector is left plugged in but its data is not recorded in any way so maybe it is inconsequential whether it is there or not does it still cause the electrons to act like particles?
There is another video about possible interpretations of the double slit experiment that I just watched that explains several interpretations, including the many worlds theory, called 'Does Consciousness Create Reality? Double Slit Experiment may show the Answer.'
I love this!
in 6:56
what do you mean by measure or" observe"?
like what exactly are we measuring here
It's a matter of semantics.
If you define sound as something a creature hears, then no, it doesn't make a sound.
But, if you define sound as longitudinal pressure waves, then yes, they absolutely make a sound.
Heres my guess about the double-slit experiment... the act of observing causes interference. Like the Heisenberg principal. Observing it changed it because observing is not entirely passive. the measurement device absorbs some energy and reflect some back at the object being observed. Just a thought. thanks!
In mc, when a tree falls in a forest, and no one is around to hear it, it does * not * make a sound.
You can now test with skulk sensors.
Another effect worth exploring - when our ear and toe are pricked simultaneously with a pin, we feel them simultaneously. However the signal traveling through our nervous system takes about 1/2 second to get from the toe to the brain. This example shows that our brain is always running about 1/2 second behind reality and putting it all together to pretend we are up to date.
This does beg the question as well, does listening count as "observing"? So if say the only ones near this falling tree are looking away (or maybe the are blind people) so noone actually looking at the act of the tree falling, but there are someone in range to hear the sound, would it then make a sound?
what if there are observations made before your observation ? how do you know there are/aren't for that you too will be needed to observe, but then it will cause observations before the primary observation. its contradictory it seems?
0:42 we need a meme review
Hi, Could you elaborate lil more on how do they observe electrons from a 90° horizontal plane!!! I feel it could only be done using some kind of eliminating film/screen....Or if the observation is being done with an electron microscope, then experiment might create disturbance in the electrons energy and that's why the wave behaviour is lost. . What's your view!!!