Upload
Login or register

cysco

Last status update:
-
Gender: male
Age: 24
Date Signed Up:12/19/2010
Location:Germany
FunnyJunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 5601 total,  6032 ,  431
Comment Thumbs: 10635 total,  11280 ,  645
Content Level Progress: 32% (32/100)
Level 141 Content: Faptastic → Level 142 Content: Faptastic
Comment Level Progress: 94% (94/100)
Level 291 Comments: Post Master → Level 292 Comments: Post Master
Subscribers:1
Content Views:253987
Times Content Favorited:585 times
Total Comments Made:544
FJ Points:13462
Favorite Tags: beethoven (2) | i (2) | like (2) | quote (2)

latest user's comments

#34 - the frequency of the electron which is vibrating is about 10^1…  [+] (3 new replies) 09/15/2014 on This week in science! -3
User avatar
#54 - drldrl (09/15/2014) [-]
It would still be a sound, just not a sound we can hear, wouldn't it?
User avatar
#60 - misfitxcreepx (09/15/2014) [-]
Yes. Our limited perception of our senses does not dictate reality. Other animals hear sounds higher than 20 kHz that we can't hear. But those sounds still exist. Same with this. cysco just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Alright, I'm about to drop some knowledge you probably aren't even interested in.

Part 1

Even our voices make sounds outside our range of hearing. When you hear a sound, you don't just hear one frequency, you hear layers upon layers of different frequencies, called overtones. We call a note a certain note based on the lowest frequency heard, or the "fundamental" frequency.

Our brains also interpret things called "difference tones." Basically if there are 2 frequencies you hear, the difference between them is heard louder. So if you hear 100 Hz and 200 Hz, the 100 Hz sound will seem louder. (200-100=100).

Back to those overtones, they work like this, if the fundamental frequency of a sound is 100 Hz, the next overtone will be 200 Hz, then 300 Hz, then 400 and so on. If x is the fundamental, it's just x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and so on, no matter what frequency the fundamental is.
User avatar
#61 - misfitxcreepx (09/15/2014) [-]
Episode 2: Revenge of the Sith

This is one reason why people say analog recordings sound better than digital. When you record in a digital format, you have to set a sample rate for the project. This is basically the same things as the frame rate on a video. Analog recordings don't use a sample rate. They just pick up what is recorded. All CD's use a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. What this means is that for every second that goes by, there are going to be 44,100 little "pictures" of the waveform of the sound. Because of this and for reasons I don't want to get into right now, the sample rate is 2 times as high as the highest freq. you can record. So a 44.1 kHz sample rate will allow you to record up to 22,050 Hz sounds. Humans can only hear up to 20,000 Hz so this is pretty much okay.

However, because the sample rate cuts off our ability to record higher than 22,050 Hz (if using 44.1 sample rate) those frequencies that are higher don't get reproduced, meaning any difference tones that would have been heard, aren't. Another sample rate that is fairly popular is 96 kHz. This helps, but like I said, all CD's use 44.1 no matter what. And don't get me started on .mp3's!
#26 - with can not be used as a medium for sound. it is absurd 09/15/2014 on This week in science! 0
#19 - > sound of an atom > "sound is a vibration that…  [+] (16 new replies) 09/15/2014 on This week in science! +11
#35 - nimithecat (09/15/2014) [-]
Sounds are infact, vibrations of a medium.
The vibrations don't have to pass through air to be vibrations.
The vibrations can be observed by watching the movement of the atom using the instruments already used to see it.
Then the movement between the frames of footage is then converted into waves, which are then carefully changed into the form of sound.


This is how a high speed camera can "see" the vibrations of a bag of potato chips, and convert it to sound...

This may seem like future shock to you, but the world around you is changing faster than you are. Society is already afraid of its own technology because they're unprepared for it. Nuclear weapons, drones, internet surveillance, these are things that only came into existence less than a hundred years ago.
#185 - kingpongthedon (09/15/2014) [-]
I don't think you really understand what you're talking about, though neither did cysco but at least he admitted it.

First off, sound is the transfer of mechanical energy through oscillating pressure and displacement through a medium. While all sounds are vibrations of a medium, not all vibrations of a medium are sound. See "all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares." Anyway, without kinetic energy transfer between the atom and the surrounding fluid, there is no sound.

Secondly, sound is an emergent property of matter, it can't exist with only a single particle. The same is true with heat. With a single particle, you only have a particle with kinetic energy.

Third, it's not even an atom. It's a system designed to behave as a single atom, similar to the model we all had to make in high school physics out of sticks and marshmallows. It approximates a single atom, but it is actually made up of many atoms (for reference the "atom" in question is 10^-5 m, while the typical atom has a radius of less than 3*10^-10 m). The headline is absolutely "written to amaze people and not to inform people."

Fourth, the way you describe capturing sound is not capturing sound in the slightest (which for the record, is not what they did anyway). Again, sound requires a transfer of kinetic energy, and if the receiver isn't affected by a direct kinetic energy transfer, it isn't sound. You can reasonably infer sound might be present with this type of oscillatory behavior, but there is a huge difference between this and directly observing it, let alone "capturing" it. The people who tested this did not infer sound was present, they measured an actual transfer of kinetic energy which is not that hard on the scale they were actually working on.

And lastly, what did that last paragraph have to do with anything?
#188 - nimithecat (09/15/2014) [-]
Well, you sound like you have a better idea of what I'm talking about.
Thanks for taking your time to write a thorough comment explaining what went wrong.
#186 - slightest (09/15/2014) [-]
To capture sound within me would not provide accurate results for any proper experimentation and is not advised. I am glad that they didn't try to do this.
#171 - kingdaniel (09/15/2014) [-]
#74 - mayoroftownsville (09/15/2014) [-]
That isn't the sound of an atom, though, because an atom didn't make the sound, we did. That's like equating every point on a grayscale line to a point on the color wheel and saying we found the color of gray.
User avatar
#37 - cysco (09/15/2014) [-]
yes, my biggest fear in live always was that someday, scientist create sound out of an atom.
but even with our explanation, the atom doesnt make a sound. we just take the frequency and make a sound out of it, but about the frequency i said enough in the other answer
#38 - nimithecat (09/15/2014) [-]
Well, actually... this could greatly help in the future of quantom computing since the vibrations were transitioning between quantum states on and off pretty quickly.

Standard computers like ours operate on 1's and 0's.
A quantum computer has a third state; BOTH at the same time.
This could make a humongous difference as we have a third type of basic code instead of binary.

Most of this "amazing" stuff has a ulterior use...
User avatar
#33 - drldrl (09/15/2014) [-]
By that logic, nothing makes sound.
All sound is vibration that our ears take in, and then it is processed.
So if we magnified the vibration of an atom so that our ears could pick it up, we would hear a sound.
#187 - kingpongthedon (09/15/2014) [-]
Not true at all. Sound is the transfer of kinetic energy though oscillating pressure and displacement through a medium. You can not have a medium of only one particle. Sound is an emergent property of matter. It exists on the large scale, but not for an individual atom. This is a common occurrence in physics, where the behavior of individual particles varies drastically from that of objects on the Newtonian scale. It's wildly misguided to say that because it operates one way in our everyday experience that it will continue to operate that way on the atomic scale.

Furthermore, just because it is vibrating does not mean it is making a sound. Remember, there must be a transfer of energy throughout the medium. Plenty of things oscillate without transferring energy to and through a medium. This is what distinguishes sound from other oscillatory behaviors. An atom physically can not do this in a way that will produce an evenly distributed and continuous pressure wave required for sound.
User avatar
#34 - cysco (09/15/2014) [-]
the frequency of the electron which is vibrating is about 10^15 Hz .. thats 1000000000000000 hz (H-atom) .. believe .. a human cant hear that sound.. our hearing range is between 20 - 20000 hz.

but even that sound is not the sound of the atom.. just an electron that is swinging and is definitely not making any sound of his vibration
User avatar
#54 - drldrl (09/15/2014) [-]
It would still be a sound, just not a sound we can hear, wouldn't it?
User avatar
#60 - misfitxcreepx (09/15/2014) [-]
Yes. Our limited perception of our senses does not dictate reality. Other animals hear sounds higher than 20 kHz that we can't hear. But those sounds still exist. Same with this. cysco just doesn't know what he's talking about.

Alright, I'm about to drop some knowledge you probably aren't even interested in.

Part 1

Even our voices make sounds outside our range of hearing. When you hear a sound, you don't just hear one frequency, you hear layers upon layers of different frequencies, called overtones. We call a note a certain note based on the lowest frequency heard, or the "fundamental" frequency.

Our brains also interpret things called "difference tones." Basically if there are 2 frequencies you hear, the difference between them is heard louder. So if you hear 100 Hz and 200 Hz, the 100 Hz sound will seem louder. (200-100=100).

Back to those overtones, they work like this, if the fundamental frequency of a sound is 100 Hz, the next overtone will be 200 Hz, then 300 Hz, then 400 and so on. If x is the fundamental, it's just x, 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x and so on, no matter what frequency the fundamental is.
User avatar
#61 - misfitxcreepx (09/15/2014) [-]
Episode 2: Revenge of the Sith

This is one reason why people say analog recordings sound better than digital. When you record in a digital format, you have to set a sample rate for the project. This is basically the same things as the frame rate on a video. Analog recordings don't use a sample rate. They just pick up what is recorded. All CD's use a sample rate of 44.1 kHz. What this means is that for every second that goes by, there are going to be 44,100 little "pictures" of the waveform of the sound. Because of this and for reasons I don't want to get into right now, the sample rate is 2 times as high as the highest freq. you can record. So a 44.1 kHz sample rate will allow you to record up to 22,050 Hz sounds. Humans can only hear up to 20,000 Hz so this is pretty much okay.

However, because the sample rate cuts off our ability to record higher than 22,050 Hz (if using 44.1 sample rate) those frequencies that are higher don't get reproduced, meaning any difference tones that would have been heard, aren't. Another sample rate that is fairly popular is 96 kHz. This helps, but like I said, all CD's use 44.1 no matter what. And don't get me started on .mp3's!
#25 - anon (09/15/2014) [-]
atoms are made of smaller partials.
User avatar
#26 - cysco (09/15/2014) [-]
with can not be used as a medium for sound. it is absurd
#18 - so aliens are to big to sea them? that is a stupid quote.. …  [+] (8 new replies) 09/15/2014 on This week in science! -36
User avatar
#190 - katarinaismywaifu (09/16/2014) [-]
>Insult nigger science man
>Get red thumbs
This website has a hardon for him i guess m8
User avatar
#191 - cysco (09/16/2014) [-]
well. i think he is more of an entertainer than a scientist in the media. his quote is a bad comparison and i think most people here are stupid sheeps, just repeat that dude. everybody with common sense knows that, whether there is life or not, this quote is stupid.
#67 - stalini (09/15/2014) [-]
>Trying to make sense with them
there's your mistake
User avatar
#159 - nickypickle (09/15/2014) [-]
man you're really an annoying cunt arent you
#194 - stalini (09/16/2014) [-]
I'm sorry if simple logic counts as "annoying" on fj
#195 - nickypickle (09/16/2014) [-]
I'm sorry if "simple logic" for you are theories fabricated from your own state of mind and outright rudeness being a factor
#196 - stalini (09/16/2014) [-]
I present mean facts, people get mad
#20 - anon (09/15/2014) [-]
i think you accidentaly your sentence
#5 - Picture  [+] (1 new reply) 09/15/2014 on Oh, 4chan +9
#8 - destroyerofcheese (09/15/2014) [-]
What immediately came to mind
#4 - in our society, yeah.. in germany everything that can be linke…  [+] (1 new reply) 09/15/2014 on Oh, 4chan +1
#7 - chromeberd (09/15/2014) [-]
There's literally nothing wrong with quoting hitler.
#10 - omg - i dont know what to say.. the is just the maximum of that scale  [+] (1 new reply) 09/14/2014 on Modern Family +2
User avatar
#11 - chokinandtokin (09/14/2014) [-]
I'd say she's more of a 32/DD
#9 - or a 12/10  [+] (2 new replies) 09/14/2014 on Modern Family +2
#10 - cysco (09/14/2014) [-]
omg - i dont know what to say.. the is just the maximum of that scale
User avatar
#11 - chokinandtokin (09/14/2014) [-]
I'd say she's more of a 32/DD
#8 - she is a 10/10 ..  [+] (4 new replies) 09/14/2014 on Modern Family +10
#20 - trueraiderfan (09/14/2014) [-]
#9 - cysco (09/14/2014) [-]
or a 12/10
#10 - cysco (09/14/2014) [-]
omg - i dont know what to say.. the is just the maximum of that scale
User avatar
#11 - chokinandtokin (09/14/2014) [-]
I'd say she's more of a 32/DD
#4 - i think he got the idea for between two ferns from his intervi…  [+] (2 new replies) 09/12/2014 on Between Two Ferns +4
User avatar
#13 - thegamerslife (09/13/2014) [-]
this is amazing! I think it's better then between two ferns.
User avatar
#9 - beloth (09/13/2014) [-]
That was amazing I dont even know who Gordon Keith is but he did it even better than Zach