This is in response to a post at the Shlokas thread -- Gayatri Mantra

Can sound (as we know it) be generated in space ?? Theres no (known) medium between the fast moving bodies for sound travel. Else we'd all have evolved as deaf creatures, or probably developed an alternate way to understand sound amidst all the terrible (and terrific) background noise.

Is energy created in the universe (apart from E=mc^2) ? The kinetic energy of galaxies is simply the energy they possess due to their motion. If they stopped moving, all the KE would be transformed into some form of potential energy, I believe. (Although that might lead the collpase of galaxies due to intense gravitational fields). And where is the sink (if any) where energy is consumed ??

That the universe generates sound had been a known fact. This was corroborated when astronomer Mark Whittle (I find that a remarkable concidence for the similarity to 'Vitthal' ), who prepared a sound clip way back in 2004 and called it the 'Primal Scream'.
He describes the sound as "...a growing hiss that resembles a roaring jet plane flying low overhead. "

For more details, refer to one of the articles here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/02/primal.scream/

Thanks for the link Mandrake. Didnt quite realise that there would be sound in the more dense regions of the universe ! Fascinating to learn of the black hole that emits a note thats 57 octaves lower than our standard 'middle' octave !! WOW !

The problem I have with sound is visualising the difference between the energy associated with its frequency and the energy associated with its amplitude. Could someone give me an example of a loud low pitch sound and a soft high pitch sound ?

Vivek, this isn't an answer to your second post, but a continuation of my first post.

I am attaching here the soundfile of Mark Whittle's work.

You can listen to the sound from the first million years after the big bang here. The sound has been compressed to five seconds, with the volume held constant.

I have taken the original wav file and converted it to mp3.

Thanks again, Mandrake. Any idea how the sound was captured ? Obviously, it couldnt have been 'heard'. Must be an interpretation of visual confirmation (by way of X-rays / something else and model simulation) of the 'ripples' that the sound would have caused in the gas clouds over millions of years.
By compressing into 5 seconds, u mean the frequency of the original sound was increased to bring it into human hearing range ?

Vivek, by compression to 5 seconds means that the sound data over 1 million years has been compressed to 5 seconds. Obviously, the 'notes', as they are heard here were formed verrry slowly. When compressed, they give one continuous sound like the jet.

And yes, the sound is a conversion of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

Also brings another thing to mind: way back in 1979, I had read in the newspapers that sound waves don't die away totally. They go to a ultra-micro state and remain so. The hypothesis went so far as to ponder, whether we could eventually develop a technology to 'reconstruct' those sounds, and listen to all that happened in the past, "provided we also developed the technique to zero in on specific strands of conversation".

Vivek,
I hope I am reading your question right. Pick up any classical flute recital by Pt. Hariprasad Chaurasia and listen to it carefully. He uses soft notes in the higher octaves and loud notes in the lower octave to create quite an effect ! I'll try to find a specific example meanwhile for you to listen.
Bibhas

In answer to the second part of your question (Mandrake has already addressed the first part, with characteristic panache, I must add), the short answer that physics provides is - No. That being said, the E= mc^2 equation is a very simplified form of a much more involved expression, which can be applied in a variety of circumstances (that will account for "creation" of energy).

Next, scientists like to talk of the existence of "energy sinks" within the universe. They have observed such areas within the universe, and Roger Penrose's theory accounts for it. Direct scientific observation has been few and far between.

Finally, on what would happen if everything stopped, you are largely correct in your assumption on energy conversion, but also remember that m = E/c^2. So, energy can also be converted into mass (not necessarily into other forms of energy). This representation of the equation was anathema for a lot of scientists for a long time. Not any more.

Thanks Mandrake, bibhas and hits to grace the thread (exactly the people I was expecting who'll respond ) Interesting theory Mandrake. I assume sound waves lose energy (that associated with their amplitude or 'loudness') to begin with in the process of overcoming the friction to cause particles to vibrate and thus propogate the sound wave. If Im not wrong, to remain in an ultra-micro state, the wave should basically possess some amplitude ('loudness'). which means the wave doesnt lose all its energy and has reached a kind of steady state. Didnt quite understand that. (or more likely theres something fundamentally incorrect in my understanding of sound propogation ).
To clarify my confusion with wave energy, like electromagnetic waves, do sound waves also have an equivalent energy associated with their frequency (akin to E = h * frequency) ? If so, is there any loss of this energyduring propogation ? .. which would basically mean a change in frequency ! ....

Spot on, bibhas ! Its so much easier for me to visualise (literally) the same funda in relation to colors ... a dull red vs a bright violet color ... mathematically it makes sense in y = Asin(w*t) and graphically also it makes sense... just unable to relate it to reality

I wish I could listen and discern what u r trying to say bibhas, but frankly I just 'know' that there are generally 3 octaves used while singing .. dont ask me to recognise the Sa from all the 3 octaves... I wont be able to... itni bhi musical 'sense' nahin hai mujhmein Pls pls pls find me an example if possible So hits u mean the original equation does allow for energy 'creation', just that scientists havent got experimental / observational proof yet ? Yes, I understand that mass can be created from energy and I suppose it has been experimentally proven too. But has it been observed in the universe ? A physical body that gains mass at the cost of its energy ? (an 'anti-star', so to speak !!) Also, the 'energy-sinks' that you indicate are those where energy just 'disappears' rather than being transformed into mass ??

A query on black holes : How is the presence of black holes verified ? Direct evidence would be impossible I guess because nothing escapes a black hole. So is it by inferential observations of the characteristics of the 'fuel' that plummets into the black hole ?

thanks vivek, this question is a real good one. u have come to face a very sensuos problem of medern sciences & technology. every such effort of yours will lead to a better understanding of these myterious phenomenon.

well to say, sound being a wave( a matter wave) needs medium 4 its propagation & origin coz itz not a EM wave. let me tell u that sound waves r created by some pulsars & such dying stars. few days back while reading an article, i found that some other celestial bodies also produce sounds.

as far as energy is concerned, every universal body is atleast spinning on its axis and that puts up a lot of angular momentum, which is just proportional to the moment of inertia of that body. this moment of inertia is nothing but the "mass" that we speak in general terms. this spinning gives of quite a large amount of energy. thats how pulsars & quasars give off high energy radiations.

i hope that would satisfy ur hunger.
kalyan

Good to revive this topic

Here's some non-scientific stuff:

I forget off-hand which Puranas stated this, but Vishwamitra, in a trance, rose out of this planet and floated in the universe in 'sookshma-roop'.
There, he saw all the planets spinning, the galaxies spinning and everything else going around itself at an awesome pace. The entire thing gave off a sound that sounded like 'ommmm'.
When he descended back, he stated that 'Om' is the sound that the universe makes.

Maybe Hits can pin-point the location of this story.

As a footnote, it reminds me of the following two instances:
Spinning tops are available, which, spun with the help of a toothed plastic strip, rotate at high speeds.
There are some types, where the tops are hollow, and there are two holes opposite each other on the top's body.
When the top spins, it gives of a sound that sounds verrry close to the 'ommm' sound.

Those who stayed in Mumbai in the 70's will remember that a siren would go off everyday at 9 A.M.
I remember that after a certain point, that sound too would remind me of 'om'.

Scientific explanation of this of course, is very easy...

thanks Mandrake,

this update regaarding 'ommmm' was really worth praise. some more light on this topic would oblige.

Mandrake,
please don't leave posts with teasing lines like that
I'm all ears for the easy explanation.
Bibhas

Search within, Bibhas, search within...
How does your flute make a sound? (I speak of the Aada flute that Panditji uses, where you blow Over a hole...)

Not fair, not fair . This was supposed to be an easy explanation, I am facing an acute shortage of neurons in my brain what with all of them being deputed to finding out if light is slowing down and such.

... and what about the rest of us whose neurons are limited despite not even trying to understand the slowing of light?? Is enlightenment limited to those with an abundance of grey matter?? Not fair!! Not fair at all!!

For those -

Enlightenment doth not lie betwixt rays of light. It lies unbeknownst, for it lies within.

EXACTLY, Hits!!!

Didn't I say 'search within'?

Anyways, since the issue cannot be left hanging, here goes (but in a verrrry simplified manner):

When you blow on the top of the hole in a flute, contrary to what most people believe, the air-stream doesn't split into two, and one enter the flute.

What happens is, the entire air-stream 'bounces' over the two opposite edges of the hole. Due to this, the air inside the flute (just under the hole) starts vibrating.
If you keep blowing continuously, slowly the entire air-column inside the flute starts vibrating till it finds it's natural rhythm. (Here I will not go into the technicalities of harmonics etc)

This entire action produces sound. The note of the sound depends upon the length of the air column. So, opening or closing of different holes of the flute produces different notes.

So essentially, if a hollow body has two holes at opposite ends, and if air is continuously blown *across* one hole, then the internal air mass vibrates to produce a continuous sound.

And now comes the most ordinary part (Bibhas you are going to kill me for this )
Any sound, if made continuously and held at a constant pitch (hopefully a low one), eventually sounds like a hum.
And doesn't 'hum' resonate with 'om'?

Something as mundane as a turbine, a generator motor or a vacuum cleaner, run for even 2 minutes will bear this out.

So also something more eclectic as a tanpura. Just keep listening to a tanpura for a few minutes and you'll catch the unmistakable sound of 'ommm' in it...

(Time to beat a hasty retreat before Bibhas smashes M to pulp....)

aur un ka kya jinke paas grey black white koi matter nahi.. agar bhoole bhatke koi light ray udhar aa bhi jaye to cant shine on anything.. because of lack of matter ( from one of M's post where he siad light would not be visible in absence of particles).
ghor andhakar in mah head

gr8 going...probably Talaikya needs a bit more understanding of basic sciences( pardon me 4 saying that).

moreover i'd like to tell Talaikya that despite having a low amount of the so called grey matter, u can achieve enlightenment only if u desire to. i'll advice u 2 go thru the previous posts, u'll get a better understanding of the whole issue.

Kalyan bhai, you don't know T-ji yet

3248 posts in one year don't come from 'grey-matter challeged' people

(Methinks I am opening the suitcase that belonged to Ms. P. A. Ndora )

well i've got a question for all the members here...here it comes.

What is Mossbaeur Effect and what r its applications?

thats it 4 the moment.
bye!!!

Thanks for the post Mandrake and more so for not taxing my already taxed brain.


I do feel like smashing you to pulp but then who would I ask the rest of my questions ?
Anyways, Jokes apart, I think it is probably important to distinguish between the "hum" and "om" (your point is well taken though).
"Om" is supposed to be pronounced (what's the right word for "ucchAran" ?) in a certain way. Musically speaking, the underlying notes for pronouncing the right Om are the same as those that a perfectly tuned tanpura uses (I'm talking about the most common way of tuning it, not the variations), and so IMHO, the sound the tanpura produces is "OM", one need not listen to it for any length of time before one hears an Om in it (unlike the other sounds you mention).
An interesting point: the beauty of the harmonics of the notes played by the tanpura are such that you can hear virtually all the other notes in multiple octaves even though only two notes are actually being played ! Now, if you utter "Om" the right way, you hear the same (If you've ever been to the temple in Tirupati, and have heard the "Om" that is continually played there, you know what I mean). Hence IMHO, "Om" is the most complete sound there is and is probably the reason why it was chosen as a symbol for the "sound of the cosmos" (Nada Brahma) !
Critique and Comments, as always, are welcome.
Bibhas

"(If you've ever been to the temple in Tirupati, and have heard the "Om" that is continually played there, you know what I mean)."
Really.. I did not notice!!.
This time I was just immersed in those big drums/ nagadas they were playign in the morning : ).. and that was some voice!!!

Shivani, if you get a chance to go there again, pay attention to it. The "Om" is heard at all times as you enter the inner sanctum sanctorum.

hi everybody...this is what i got 4 y people.

Click to view attachment

File attach karna bhool gaye Kalyan bhai ?

sorry bibhas bhai, maine to attach kiya tha...par shayad kuch gadbad ho gaye hai..par mai dhundke doobara post karunga.

Vivek,
Sorry it took this long. Hariji's pieces were too complex to post to illustrate my point without getting into technicalities of music. So I have a short clip from one of my music classes where my guruji is playing a short piece in Raag Kirwani. I'll specify the timings so that you can follow the pattern of the notes.

08-10 secs: Loud notes in higher octave

19-21 and then again 36-40 : Loud notes in lower octave

25-31: soft notes in higher octave. Specifically compare these to the other two sets listed above.

Bibhas

Thanks bibhas. Great effort .. par kaash mere bhoose mein ye baat ghus paata
I'd love to get into the technicalities, but frankly, I wouldnt be doing justice to your efforts. There seems to be a mental block in me in understanding music. I shd probably adopt T-ji's signature, and just enjoy music, without trying to understand it.

A quick note though ---- why is human hearing on a logarithmic scale and not on a linear scale ? Why is it that only a specific sequence of frequencies sound 'melodious', while sequence of any intermediate frequencies (which is what I'm good at!) sounds cacophonous ? What is it in us that is "naturally tuned" to those frequencies ? Am I making any sense ?
Wheres my partner Shivani at playing the "I'm stupid" card --