First Acoustic Black Hole Created 165
KentuckyFC writes "One of the many curious properties of Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs) is that the flow of sound through them is governed by the same equations that describe how light is bent by a gravitational field. Now, a group of Israeli physicists have exploited this idea to create an acoustic black hole in a BEC. The team created a supersonic flow of atoms within the BEC, a flow that prevents any phonon caught in it from making headway. The region where the flow changes from subsonic to supersonic is an event horizon, because any phonon unlucky enough to stray into the supersonic region can never escape. The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it makes possible: the first observation of Hawking radiation. Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream of phononic radiation away from an acoustic black hole would be the first observation of Hawking radiation. The team hasn't gotten that far yet, but it can't be long now before either they or their numerous competitors make this leap."
And the news is where? (Score:5, Funny)
I got a shot Bose amp here, and any sound you put in turns into silence. Voila, accustic black hole.
I'd sell this baby for cheap, too!
Re:And the news is where? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm giving my Bosewave radio new respect and standing a couple steps away from it just in case.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think "Bose" is just the American way to write "Böse", which is German for "evil". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? *puts on double-layered tinfoil overall*
Re: (Score:2)
And how, pray tell, will a tinfoil overall protect you from Evil Sound?
Perhaps you should consider tinfoil earmuffs instead. Or maybe a tinfoil hat with earflaps.
Re: (Score:2)
That's just what They want you to believe. If they can't get rid of your tinfoil hat, get you to pay them for all the extras until it's too heavy to wear. THEN They get you.
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. There's a vacuum between the two layers. That's why there are two.
The rest is for EM radiation.
We're still working on the weak and the strong force, and on gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and when I said overall, I meant over ALL. Basically a thin space suit. Without a window. So not only can you not be rickrolled. You can also not be goatse'd.
Buy now. Only 499.00 Internets.
Re: (Score:2)
Earmuffs made out of Bose Einstein Condensate? Fluffy ones, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
And speaking of black holes, I had one for lunch. I put a meat patty and a veggie patty into the same burger. The Meat and the Anti-Meat annihilated each other and I was left with a Black Hole Burger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... I can only judge it by my shot Bose amp, and no, it doesn't make a sound when you switch it off. Actually, it seems to be permanently on, because even when I flip the switch you still don't hear anything.
OMG, I hope I didn't break the sound universe.
I guess this proves... (Score:4, Funny)
that in space, no one can hear you scre...
Re:I guess this proves... (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, I have another reference to make...
So, does this mean that the octirion bells in Unseen University clock tower emit Hawking Radiation?
at last, the dream is realized! (Score:5, Funny)
"In one ear and out the other."
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"In one ear and out the other."
Except that, in this case, it went in one ear and got stuck.
Consumer applications (Score:2)
Sort of Hawking Radiation (Score:5, Informative)
That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing. It's not true HR, but it would be a nice demonstration if they were to get it to work, especially if they could show some sort of analog to black hole "evaporation," which is the main implication of HR. I suppose that should naturally happen as the separation of the pairs sucks energy from the BEC and slows the fluid inside, shrinking the event-horizon-analogue.
Also, let's get properly flowing BEC layers in our noise canceling headphones!
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so the Bose Noise Canceling headphones create these so called "Acoustic Blackholes" in the ears of the headphones to eliminate noise. But wont the radiation cause brain cancer or something??
This will never sell!
Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (Score:5, Interesting)
That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.
Not a physicist, but here's how I think the metaphor between the experiment and the real thing is supposed to work:
Speed of light: maximum speed information can travel through a vacuum ("the void")
Speed of sound: maximum speed information can travel through a medium composed of atoms ("substance")
(When aircraft go supersonic, the air they run into is incapable of "preparing" to be hit, in a manner of speaking...)
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound. And just as you can't go fast enough to come back through an event horizon, information can't propagate fast enough in the experiment to go back across the subsonic/supersonic boundary. This shows us what it looks like to be in a situation like that of a black hole.
By the way, there's a similar, cheaper experiment you can do: pop a hole in a pressurized container. The gas cannot escape it (at the outlet) faster than the local speed of sound, which is obtained whenever the ratio of pressure inside to pressure outside exceeds a critical value. One gas dynamics professor said I can think of it like this: "even though a higher pressure ratio creates a greater pressure potential difference, the gas inside the tank cannot 'learn' of the greater difference because that would require information to go *into* the tank, *against* the gas that is escaping at the speed of sound"
Kind of like in the setup described in the article...
Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (Score:5, Informative)
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound.
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. We create things that travel faster than the speed of light in other media all the time. The blue Cherenkov Radiation glow in fission reactors is caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in water, and creating a light shockwave analogous to the sound shockwave that e.g. supersonic aircraft produce.
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the coolest bits of not very useful knowledge I've seen a long time. (Although I should have known this, and mostly did.)
Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (Score:4, Interesting)
Arguably, light travels faster in a Casimir cavity than in a vacuum. Really, there's no reason to suppose that "emtpy space" represents the medium through which light flows the fastest, merely that it's somewhere close.
Re: (Score:2)
There kind of is. When light travels through a medium it is slowed down due to interactions with particles. The less it interacts with particles the faster the light travels. The photon's themselves don't ever actually change speed. How do you suppose that a substance could cause the light to travel faster than the speed of the photons themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
The less it interacts with particles the faster the light travels.
then light should travel faster in a Casimir cavity then in vacuum. Though, I would bet that it still does not allow you to send a signal faster than with light in vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
The casimir cavity is a vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the casimir cavity has less energy than a vacuum. Negative, as it were.
That is not to say that photons would move faster in a casimir cavity. I have no idea whether they would, but it would be easy to calculate - does the permeability of the vacuum differ from that of a casimir cavity?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
That's what "the speed of light" means. People almost never mean "the speed of light in water" (or some other non-vacuum medium) when they just say "the speed of light" unless they've previously established the context earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
We create things that travel faster than the speed of light in other media all the time. The blue Cherenkov Radiation glow in fission reactors is caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in water, and creating a light shockwave analogous to the sound shockwave that e.g. supersonic aircraft produce.
When you say "we", I'm presuming you're referring to all those of us who have fission reactors giving off Cherenkov Radiation glow in our back sheds...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
One gas dynamics professor said I can think of it like this: "even though a higher pressure ratio creates a greater pressure potential difference, the gas inside the tank cannot 'learn' of the greater difference because that would require information to go *into* the tank, *against* the gas that is escaping at the speed of sound"
I really don't like that explanation... it makes it seem like the pressure differential is "known" to the gas inside the cylinder via some sort of acoustically-transmitted information. My initial reaction was "HUH" and my secondary reaction was "ok, I don't buy that."
After a little work on Google, I discovered that the effect really exists, but I think this link describes it better (emphasis mine): [engsoft.co.kr]
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't like that explanation... it makes it seem like the pressure differential is "known" to the gas inside the cylinder via some sort of acoustically-transmitted information. My initial reaction was "HUH" and my secondary reaction was "ok, I don't buy that."
That's almost what he's saying. He's not saying there is acoustically-transmitted information, but that there is physically transmitted information.
Imagine you are inside the container. If you measure how much air is leaving the container, you have access to all the information required to know the pressure of the outside. At a certain point, the pressure of the outside has no further effect on the flow, so inside of the container, no further information about the outside is possible. You only know that the
Re: (Score:2)
So while the external pressure is changing, no information about that fact is making its way into the container!
True enough, but why not? That's really the whole question.
So the physical/mechanical transfer of information cannot exceed the speed of sound in this system,
Why not? Why is the speed of sound the limiting factor?
if the air is leaving at the speed of sound, trying to go backwards at the speed of sound results in a net speed of zero.
I return to the thin-plate scenario: a thin plate should still obey your rules. Air is escaping at the speed of sound. If the flow of information is asymptotically limited by the speed of sound, the velocity shouldn't increase beyond that, no matter how thin the plate is. It does.
Re: (Score:2)
The acoustic properties of solids are generally pretty good. Again, I don't see the thickness of the plate really playing much of a role in determining whether or not information can "get inside" the tank.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound. And just as you can't go fast enough to come back through an event horizon, information can't propagate fast enough in the experiment to go back across the subsonic/supersonic boundary. This shows us what it looks like to be in a situation like that of a black hole.
That's exactly right. What they have done is create an acoustic event horizon. It doesn't hold all the same properties as a real black hole, but as Korn says, there is a chance that you can see Hawking Radiation and possibly BH evaporation from this experiment. There has already been a paper [arxiv.org] suggesting that you can see Hawking radiation by looking at the density correlation functions of the BEC.
Re: (Score:2)
That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.
This isn't really a metaphor exactly. If the equations governing two systems are the same, then we expect the behavior to be the same, and we can describe them in the same terms. Phonons themselves are a good example of this: a phonon is hardly the sort of thing that you would intuitively think of as a particle, but because the equations governing phonons are the same as those governing quantum mechanical particles, physicists describe phonons as particles. Subatomic particles themselves bear very little
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.
This isn't really a metaphor exactly. If the equations governing two systems are the same, then we expect the behavior to be the same, and we can describe them in the same terms. Phonons themselves are a good example of this: a phonon is hardly the sort of thing that you would intuitively think of as a particle, but because the equations governing phonons are the same as those governing quantum mechanical particles, physicists describe phonons as particles. Subatomic particles themselves bear very little resemblance to the 'billiard ball' particles that most people imagine. I think that it would be better to say that Hawking radiation is just an effect predicted for systems obeying certain equations, and in that sense, both the acoustic and traditional black holes exhibit completely real Hawking Radiation.
It is true that getting 'acoustic Hawking radiation' wouldn't constitute absolute proof that Black Holes do the same thing - our model may be wrong. What it will do do is provide proof that, assuming our model is correct, Hawking radiation is real, and there isn't some unanticipated effect which invalidates the theory.
I take your point, and you may easily have more expertise than I do (non-specialist grad quantum mechanics classes and a couple undergrad astro classes along with some casual enthusiasm for the subject). My understanding of Hawking radiation is that the split virtual pair explanation isn't physically accurate, but that tunneling of particles through the event horizon is the more physically valid explanation.
1) I'm not aware of an analogous effect that will work for phonons. Tunneling itself is on the wron
Re: (Score:2)
1) I'm not aware of an analogous effect that will work for phonons. Tunneling itself is on the wrong lengthscale.
2) Since the virtual particle pair splitting explanation also satisfies the radiation equations, maybe this difference doesn't have much significance. Were someone to convince me of this, I'd fully agree with you.
Well, I'll admit that my knowledge of Phonons is actually fairly limited, so I'm trusting the article in it's claim that the equations governing the two systems are the same. If not then the article is being very misleading, and I'd have to change my stance! My own personal opinion about quantum mechanics though is that the equations themselves represent the fundamental thing, and the particular interpretation you place on them is just a convenience.
So both the 'split virtual pair' explanation and the tun
Re: (Score:2)
That's another great post. I think I'm comfortable with basic quantum mechanics until someone like you comes along and reminds me of a lot of things I know but that aren't intuitive.
"My own personal opinion about quantum mechanics though is that the equations themselves represent the fundamental thing, and the particular interpretation you place on them is just a convenience."
I thoroughly agree, and I'll try to remember that next time I try to get high and mighty with what are, at the very best, guesses.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also be an important point that we just believe the equations to be the same.
If "hawking radiation" shows up in this experiment, that does in no way prove it would for black holes. Or the other way around. Or in the details, for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
If you yell a lot at your black sound hole, until it cries, and "evaporates", does it create something that resembles a Disaster Area recording from 30 miles away, in an atomic bunker?
Re: (Score:2)
it would be a nice demonstration if they were to get it to work
One thing that would demonstrate is that the mathematics is valid. It's a bit like like trying to run a Java program on different JVMs ;-)
From the tone of the description (Score:2)
From the enthusiastic tone of the description, this sounds like Nobel Prize material.
Yet, I cannot judge it well enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it might makes possible: the first observation of something analogous to Hawking radiation. The Theory of Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Theoretically, were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream
Re: (Score:2)
That's because the dronons were captured in the black hole, while the excitons weren't. What you've just experienced is the first known observation of Hawkings elation.
86 says (Score:4, Funny)
Let's use the cone of silence, chief!
Re:86 says.. (Score:2)
Huh?
Phonon ey? (Score:5, Insightful)
I knew light was quantized, but I had seriously never heard of Phonons, or that sound can be quantized as well.
Well, apparently it can: Phonon [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Everything is quantized if you're looking at it at a small enough scale.
Re: (Score:2)
last i heard, there was no conclusion on space and/or time.
Re: (Score:2)
See Hitch hikers guide then, quote;
Space is big, really big, big than the biggest thing ever. You may think its a long way down the street to the the shop but thats just peanuts compared to space!
Re: (Score:2)
"Phonos" are basically "crystal oscillations". Enter the concept of "reciprocal space": it's basically the Fourier transform of the real 3D space, and is very commonly used in solid state physics.
Now as you probably know, a clean frequency (i.e. a sinus wave) in the time domain results to a single peak in the Fourier-Transform (i.e. in the frequency domain). And similar for phonons: a clean crystal oscillation (i.e. a single-frequency sound wave propagating through a medium) in 3D space results in the equiv
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, phonons do not exist objectively, but are mathematical constructs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not Hawking Radiation (Score:3, Informative)
There is an analogy there in the macro physics but that doesn't mean the small scale stuff like QM will be mirrored.
You can model gravity in the orbital mechanics sense with a marble and vertical cone that tapers at 1/square(height). That doesn't mean it will do anything relativistic or quantum mechanical.
Re:Not Hawking Radiation (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
maybe we can use this to... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, when will humanity invent this mysterious technology that allows us to avoid reality TV and cable news? This device, known to SciFi writers as the "off switch" may forever be the stuff of fiction.
I buy it (Score:3, Funny)
Not the first Acoustic Black Hole (Score:5, Interesting)
www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/8/1/013/jpconf5_8_013.pdf
The argument basically goes that when you unplug your bathtub, there's a certain point at which waves generated past the "event horizon" near the hole never escape the hole. It's an interesting read, but I was under the impression that this is basically the same thing, albeit not an effect that arises from quantum field theory.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Little known science fact: the LHC *is* a bathtub, and the Compact Muon Solenoid is merely a frontage for a giant yellow rubber duck [woostercollective.com].
This will all be explored in Dan Brown's upcoming novel.
DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (Score:5, Funny)
Or even worse, the Earth will continue to exist and be entirely populated by mimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Time to arm the motherless penguins with loaves of pumpernickel.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll create a BLACK HOLE that ENGULFS THE EARTH! Just like the LHC!
So *THAT'S* what happened! I've been wondering why my clothes felt tighter these past few weeks...
Acoustic Black Hole (Score:3, Funny)
What does it sound like? (Score:2)
Dudley? (Score:2)
Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm bassuming there's an unintended 'B' in that sentence..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My father (who happens to be almost deaf) has a unique approach to this that has seen good results through the years... He keeps a couple of CDs of music with him that are frankly just awful. When someone is being obnoxious with their music, he switches away from whatever he was normally listening to, takes his hearing aids out, selects the song(s) he think will cause the recipient the most auditory distress, and then cranks his music until his seat rattles... leaving it turned up until they're out of heari
I had an acoustic black hole before... (Score:2)
Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (Score:5, Funny)
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven."
"Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black. "
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Great (Score:5, Funny)
Acoustic black hole... (Score:2, Funny)
Phonon != Photon! (Score:3, Insightful)
How do you infer from the effects of phonons, that the same happens to photons? If they had the same effects, this would mean that luminiferous aether would exist. Which as far as we know, is not true, and replaced by the theory of relativity. Or would it be the effect of a quantized space-time? And would those quantums then be some kind of particles?
Or is the analogy just wrong, except for some subsets? ^^
Re: (Score:2)
i think the key is trusting the equations.
ftfs: One of the many curious properties of Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs) is that the flow of sound through them is governed by the same equations that describe how light is bent by a gravitational field.
but w/r/t the aether, i'm kind of intrigued recently by this guy [youtube.com] who posits that the aether theory is in fact correct and that the mistake in the michaelson/morley era was assuming that matter was not itself a [standing] wave propogating though the aether.
he's a
Not so fast... (Score:4, Funny)
Black hole? (Score:2)
If it traps sound instead of light, shouldn't it be called a silent hole instead?
This gives me an idea! (Score:2)
Pardon my ignorance, but... (Score:2)
what would happen... (Score:3, Interesting)
we all know photon pairs are connected. an observation on changes the state of the other. (quantum entanglement) but what happens if one of a pair of photons enters a black hole and the other remains outside?
does quantum entanglement still exist fo these photons? does the photon still exist inside the black hole or does it disintegrate or change state? if so: what would happen to the other photon outside?
i call whatever will happen the Fuzzums effect ;)
Silent Hole (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's like Monster Cables for speakers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on which end of the spectrum you're at.
At the entry-level end, if you're just talking about speakers in a system, it's just a matter of choice. My four matched Bose 201's and VC-10 centre channel cost neither more nor less than other speakers that were available at the time. To my ear, they sound just fine, and I'd know people whose Bose
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is, most people don't have super-discriminating ears, and are therefore not really capable of telling much difference between any speakers.
You don't need super-discriminating ears to know that Bose systems sound like shit. It's perfectly obvious. Bose doesn't even do well against inexpensive systems, let alone ones in the Bose price-range.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so, Bose is the most overated manufacturer in its field.
Back when I was doing live sound, we occasionally had to use 802 speakers. Quite a combination, crap sound and hopelessly inefficient!
Efficiecy was the biggest issue though, they were nearly 10db less efficient than the usual speakers.
Oh and we have had to replace the surrounds on a lot of the bose rane too, including 402 etc, so I wouldnt be that excited about reliability.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, sound is entirely subjective. Bose figures that to much of the listening public, a shift to the mid range is more pleasing to the ear. ("No highs, no lows, must be Bose" I believe is how it gets phrased.)
They've been in business for over 40 years. Clearly, a measurable percentage of people who aren't you, disagree with you.
Frankly, this isn't really any different that the whinging between
Re: (Score:2)
They've been in business for over 40 years. Clearly, a measurable percentage of people who aren't you, disagree with you.
Bose used to make some decent products, but not anymore. Current buyers are simply victims of duplicitous marketing (lies, in other words).
In the end, do you really give a shit that I think my speakers sound fine and you feel they could only sound like crap?
I don't care about your tastes, personally. What I do care about is a company that is a bunch of lying parasites. I believe in honest business, and think that liars and scammers should be out of business, not making ridiculous profits based on ignorance.
So, your choice in speakers matters only insofar as you are enabling the scum.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any experience of Bose speakers, but I have a pair of their noise cancelling headphones and used to own a pair of their earbuds - both of which were gifts, I hasten to add. Much as I love music, I am not a hi-fi buff and wouldn't spend £250 on headphones. Still, there have been innumerable occasions when I have heard details in familiar songs I had never noticed before in hundreds of plays. The headphones (QuietComfort 3s) are a little bass-heavy, if anything, but the buds sounded to me a
Re: (Score:2)
Undoubtably Lemmy could kill an acoustical black hole.
But Soundgarden already did (or at least traveled through one). Unfortunately, the singer's voice was permanently damaged by the experience, and so when he sings "Black Hole Sound" we hear "Black Hole Sun" instead.
Or something.
Not that Lemmy doesn't have more talent in his superfluous third nipple than Soundgarden has, but he probably just hasn't bothered with an acoustic black hole yet.