Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Space Technology

Listening To the Big Bang – In High Fidelity 85

Posted by samzenpus
from the big-bang-music dept.
First time accepted submitter vinces99 writes "A decade ago, spurred by a question for a fifth-grade science project, University of Washington physicist John Cramer devised an audio recreation of the Big Bang that started our universe nearly 14 billion years ago. Now, armed with more sophisticated data from a satellite mission observing the cosmic microwave background – a faint glow in the universe that acts as sort of a fossilized fingerprint of the Big Bang – Cramer has produced new recordings that fill in higher frequencies to create a fuller and richer sound."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Listening To the Big Bang – In High Fidelity

Comments Filter:
  • by Tastecicles (1153671) on Friday April 05, 2013 @06:24AM (#43366887)

    ...you didn't warn me, now my ears are bleeding.

    • by rts008 (812749)

      And what part of "Big Bang in High Fidelity" did you not understand?

  • Ummmm (Score:4, Funny)

    by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Friday April 05, 2013 @06:26AM (#43366895) Journal

    I hate that Sheldon guy, who the hell wants to hear his voice better?

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Just what I needed this morning, some random loud sound WITH NO OBVIOUS VOLUME CONTROL ON THE DAMN PAGE. Seriously, how hard can it be to include a volume control?
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Seriously? Do you not have a volume knob on your speakers,or on your OS?

      You know, Even windows 95 had a volume control. I can't think of a single machine capable of rendering the web audio that does not have volume control (software or hardware). Use it! Not everything has to be spoon fed on the web page for you.

    • Just what I needed this morning, some random loud sound WITH NO OBVIOUS VOLUME CONTROL ON THE DAMN PAGE. Seriously, how hard can it be to include a volume control?

      Ahh, the sound of the universe being born, in the morning...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    at the time of the big bang, would there have been anything to hear? Technically, was there any sound?

  • by maroberts (15852) on Friday April 05, 2013 @06:48AM (#43366967) Homepage Journal

    Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started Wait....

  • Tasty over tones hear
    • by flyneye (84093)

      They will definitely be backing tracks to some future recordings of mine.
      Nice of them to open the permissions.

  • what if you play it backwards??

  • Recordings? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by opusman (33143) on Friday April 05, 2013 @07:42AM (#43367163) Homepage

    Are you sure that's the right term? Somehow I doubt it's actually a recording :)

    • by AlecC (512609)

      Why not? The energy was extracted from the environment and converted into a sound file playable on your computer. It may have been post-processed a bit, but it is a record of fluctuations created by the Bug Bang.

      • I had heard the Big Bang created all gas giants and nebulae, but even I don't believe they can record it's flatulence.

    • by jovius (974690)

      Could these be called playbacks? Recording medium is the cosmic background microwave signature in the fabric of the universe, and these are playbacks of it at various speeds.

  • Pardon my apparent ignorance, but how would there have been any sound if there was nothing for sound waves to travel through? (i.e., "In space, no one can hear you scream." -- Alien)
    • by Pembers (250842)

      Back then, the universe contained the same amount of matter as it does now, but compressed into a much smaller volume. Therefore it was much denser - much too dense to be considered a vacuum - meaning that sound could travel through it.

      • I'm not buying that one. The materials would be super-dense, super-hot, moving at almost the speed of light, and moving in different directions. I don't think sound would have much meaning here which could be correlated with what we sense as sound.

        • I'm not buying that one. The materials would be super-dense, super-hot, moving at almost the speed of light, and moving in different directions. I don't think sound would have much meaning here which could be correlated with what we sense as sound.

          We correlate the propagation of disturbances in the fluid medium which immerses us as "sound". Do you not think that disturbances propagated in the fluid medium that existed moments after the big bang?

          • No I don't think that, because there was no fluid medium in the moments after the big bang. There was no atomic matter at all until 400,000 years afterwards. However much you might try to stretch the definition of sound, it's not going to cover subatomic particles!

            • Yes, you are correct. Reviewing the chronology of the big bang on Wikipedia, I see that I had all kinds of mistakes in the order for which events happened. Thank you for correcting me!

    • Relevant for you:
      http://tomsastroblog.com/archives/13999 [tomsastroblog.com]
      In space, no one can hear you scream. Maybe.

  • I guess they're a little spoiled for bandwidth over at faculty.washington.edu, and don't realise that a 15mb, 4000x2020 JPEG scaled down to 1000 pixels is not the best use of teh tubes.
  • There is no sound in space. To pretend that there is, the density, temperature, and atmospheric pressure would make it vary greatly. So really this is just made up bullshit.
    • by PvtVoid (1252388)

      There is no sound in space. To pretend that there is, the density, temperature, and atmospheric pressure would make it vary greatly. So really this is just made up bullshit.

      Um, no. There really was sound in the early universe [uchicago.edu], which was much denser than the universe today. Perhaps you should educate yourself a little before you start calling stuff "made up bullshit".

      • Atom vibration requires atmospheric pressure. Any power levels registering above 190 decibels is considered a "shockwave" and not sound because it behaves differently. So no, there was no sound. Maybe you should educate yourself a little before you start posting useless arrogant crap.
        • by femtobyte (710429)

          Why are you arguing using numbers for shockwave formation in atmospheric-pressure air? Do you not realize that sound can propagate in a variety of media, with different speeds (thus different thresholds for shockwave generation), and that the early universe wasn't filled with atmospheric-pressure air? Come back when you've re-calculated shockwave conditions in the state of matter prior to recombination; and if you can't do that, then don't flaunt your ignorance by spouting wholly irrelevant numbers.

    • by Livius (318358)

      Space is not an absolutely perfect vacuum, and the medium has pressure waves, also known as sound. Just not sound that human hearing would be sensitive to.

  • I dont see whats so great... All Glory To The Hypnotoad!
  • It's the true name of god [wikipedia.org], spoken at the beginning of creation to bring about the universe and all we know,

    Whatever you do, don't play it in reverse [wikipedia.org]!

  • I notice that you have posted illicit audio copies of my copy-written creation of the universe.

    Please remove them immediately, as specified by the provisions of the DMCA...

    If you fail to do so, legal penalties, up to and including extreme smiting may be incurred.

    Sincerely yours,

    God (Esq)

  • The Om [wikipedia.org] is the sound of the universe, it's roots are in ancient Hinduism. That was the first thing that popped into my brain. Time for quiet meditation then yoga and vegie-burgers anyone?
  • I understand that the sound wave lowers pitch due two propagation over time (basically), I get that. But what were the fluctuation noises in the first 1-2 seconds of the sound bit?
  • ..."let there be light" in God-speak, no wonder that our guys didn't get the tree warning.

  • I hate when people say "hi-fidelity". Fortunately, not many people use it now. I only hear people use this to imply: "I paid more for my speakers then you did". The word doesnt have any meaning and in fact makes me think of products from the 50's to 70's. It like finding a tuner that says "In Stereo" on it... as if this is some soft of selling point. It would be more interesting if I was told it was recording in quadrophonic sound or captured on reel to reel, because then I would at least know what hi-fidel

    • by DirtyLiar (796951)

      There is definate "low-fidelity", so high-fidelity is a given. It relates to either the fidelity (accuracy) of a recording, or the ability of equipmen to re-produce high-fidelity (high accuracy) sounds from those high-fidelity recordings.

      Also, your statement implies that you cannot hear a difference between mono, sterio, and/or other multi-track audio playback (Sterio+Subwoofer, Sterio+Center, Quadraphonic, or any combination thereof).

      Sterio may be standard now, but it does not make the word meaningless.

  • That's cool.

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...