If that's so, then you're right, Dan. I misunderstood, based on a vague
memory of what I saw on the newswires while working. Very cool science
From: Dan Dugan
Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2003 10:44 AM
Subject: RE: [Nature Recordists] the lowest natural sound yet detected
Scott Shepard wrote:
>If you define sound as periodic rarefications and compressions of a gas
>medium, then this is not a sound. What has been detected, over all
>distance and time, is electromagnetic radiation. By the same token,
>signals traveling through your audio cables are not sound. They are
>electrical signals ANALOGOUS to a sound event. Takes a transducer such
>as a microphone or speaker to convert between the two.
>It's easy to confuse them, I remember some confusion about it coming up
>in my electroacoustics class in EE school. The point of the story, I
>think, is that the frequency of the electromagnetic signal detected was
>such that, if it were a sound, it would be the pitch indicated. Not
>very precise scientific journalism, calling it a sound.
You misunderstand the original evidence. No super-low-frequency
electromagnetic signal has been detected. What has been seen
(visually) is waves of compression and rarification in interstellar
gas. From the photographs the speed and wavelength has been
calculated. Compression waves in gas are properly described as sound.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
de=3D30510&media=3Dzone> click here
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/