Scientists Capture the Sound Made By a Single Atom 100
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.
Re: (Score:1)
A first post that went ten hours without being modded. I do not think I've ever seen that before.
Re: (Score:2)
Single atom says:
"Help! I'm trapped in the four-dimensional space-time string, isolated from the 12-dimentional multiverse!"
forest (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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 le
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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, i
Re: (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 exchang
Re: (Score:3)
If it can't happen at the quantum level it's not sound it's vibration.
Philosophical Point (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 finger
Re: (Score:2)
Re:forest (Score:5, Funny)
We are talking about EXCITED atoms here - what they say is 'Wheeeee'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, though you said Adam in some Garden.
Anyway, according to my wife it was atoms fault.
Re: (Score:1)
You might want to read up on the ground breaking research by Dr. Wonhan Clapping.
I felt a tiny disturbance in the Force... (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 (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.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it's in quotes because it's not an established word for people outside your(physics?) discourse community.
Re: (Score:2)
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 [wikipedia.org] to an explanation of the word.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re:phonon is a widely accepted term (Score:5, Funny)
... piezoelectrically coupled superconducting qubit, which is pretty cool.
I saw what you did there, and it was pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Slim Pickens (Score:2)
And the sound of an excited single atom is... (Score:2)
Bwah bow chicky bow bow, bwah bow chicky bow bow!
(alternatively, "Hey baby, I'm excited! Let's share some electrons and get covalent!")
10^5 slower? (Score:2)
That's a new one. What does it mean?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
15
10 xor 5 = 15
1010 xor 0101 = 1111
Re: (Score:2)
15
10 xor 5 = 15
1010 xor 0101 = 1111
F that.
Re:10^5 slower? (Score:4, 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?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking English is not the same as writing maths.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Where's the link? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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, (Score:3)
where is the air carrying the sound - or is there a new definition of "sound of the newer kind"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Typo. TFS meant Nobel goal.
Sounds like mystical BS (Score:2)
"Phonon", my ass. Is this "science" targeted at idiots? Really, we do not need any more BS masquerading as science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think DirePickle was aiming his post at others besides gweihir.
BTW, somebody please mod DirePickle's post as Informative.
You know the rules (Score:2)
Where can I hear it? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shroedinger's Phonon (Score:2)
For those, like me, who couldn't find it (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Do I emit a sound? (Score:1)
Sounds like... (Score:2)
It was said to sound ominously like clapping.
But did they photograph it's O face? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the sound produced by a single molecule.
The sound of a single excited atom? (Score:2)
What does it sound like when it's bored?
A little bit softer now... (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?"
"sound a single atom makes when it is excited" (Score:2)
Soooo yesterday, dood. . . . (Score:2)
Ooooommmmm . . .