You mean:

"If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?"

Ok,so you edited it!

The answer is yes!!

How could the answer be anything other....?

BaldFriede wrote: Tony R wrote: You mean: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" Ok,so you edited it!   The answer is yes!! How could the answer be anything other....?   So how do you know? You have not been around. You just derive that from having seen other trees fall and having heard the sound that makes. Let's phrase the question a little differently: "If a neutron in the nucleus of an atom decays and turns into a proton, does it emit an electron when no-one is there to observe it?" Anyone who knows a bit about quantum mechanics will tell you that it indeed makes a big difference whether there is an observer or not.

The question is fatally flawed and presumptious.It presumes that the whole of nature dances to Man's tune amongst other simplistic mistakes.The "Laws Of Nature" predate Man exponentially.

Where to start?

Hmm,man is not the only living thing that can hear sounds.
Science,observation and experience tell us that the tree makes a sound when it hits the forest floor.Basic physics,very basic physics.

And turning the question to one about quantum physics is absurd in the extreme!

Hello again,BF.....

Logos wrote: Tony R wrote: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" If a tree falls in the woods and nobody witnesses it, why should anyone care?

Because I dropped my Rolex under the ****ing tree!

Yep. The guy was also a misogynist and a saint. 

^

Yea, there's that interesting theory that we all exist in someone's dream/imagination

AtLossForWords wrote: I think some people are looking at this in the wrong way.  The philosophical question here is does the tree really make a sound at all?  We keep answering this question whether or not the tree would make a sound when we know the tree is there.  The proper way to think about this is how do we proove this tree exists.  I still say the tree does not exist because of the relativity of existence.

If I see a tree, then in my mind, it exists. I don't care aout any of that metaphysical nonsense. If I see it and touch it, then it exists.

You mean:

"If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?"

Ok,so you edited it!

The answer is yes!!

How could the answer be anything other....?

BaldFriede wrote: The laws of physics are derived from what we observe, either with one of our senses or with some scientific apparatus. But the fact that we only ever observed noise-making falling trees so far is not proof that all falling trees make noises; it only makes it highly probable. This is the same for all "laws" of nature we know. You can't derive the non-existence of a non-striped tiger from the fact that you only ever saw striped ones. And indeed there are some white tigers. Many creatures that were supposed to be "mystic" were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century; hundreds of new species of insects are discovered yearly. You may say: "I can derive the tree would make a sound from the physical theories we know to be true", but even the best physical theories don't describe incidents accurately (you could for example never fortell where a certain leaf of a tree will land when it falls). I recommend to read the very entertaining and informative book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black? The Unanswered Questions at the Frontiers of Science" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. Palaeontoligist Stephen J. Gould wrote a very interesting and enlightening preface to it, which deals with topics like this.

Understand your point of view, but any object with mass falling in an environement with atmosphere as the earth produces vibration, that's beyond any question.

Vibration causes a pressure in the air and that means sound in any point ofthe earth, things like that can't be discussed, if not my example of the TNT truck will be exactly the same.

1. Truck full of TNT, nobody around to wittnes it
2. Explosion
3. Sound, despite there's anybody to listen it.

The real question is if this sound matters at all being nobody there to listen it.

But in the earth there's no way a falling tree could not make sound, even if it falls over cusihons it will cause sounds. Now if you're talking aboout vacuum, yes it's true, it could maybe not cause sound because there's no air moleules that will push each others to transmit the vibration, in other words it will cause sound but it would be impossible to listen it.

Iván

.

Badabec wrote: Tony R wrote: You mean: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" Ok,so you edited it!   The answer is yes!! How could the answer be anything other....?   Can you prove it? This is NOT provable.

Yes it can be proved, Laws of physics, an object with mass that falls produces a vibration in the form of  compression wave and this creates sound except in vacuum, despite there's somebody there to listen it.

If a truck full of TNT explodes in the wood and nobody wittnesses, does it makes a sound?

Iván

goose wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Tony R wrote: You mean: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" Ok,so you edited it! <!-- Signature -->   The answer is yes!! How could the answer be anything other....?   So how do you know? You have not been around. You just derive that from having seen other trees fall and having heard the sound that makes. Let's phrase the question a little differently: "If a neutron in the nucleus of an atom decays and turns into a proton, does it emit an electron when no-one is there to observe it?" Anyone who knows a bit about quantum mechanics will tell you that it indeed makes a big difference whether there is an observer or not. Since a sound can be defined as a vibration through a medium, the laws of physics state that a falling tree (assuming it's not just eternally falling through a vacuum, that is) must indeed create a sound. It can't be proven, but then nothing can be proven without at least one assumption.

No the tree does not make a sound.  Existence is relative to perception.  If there is no knowledge of the tree falling, does it really exist?  If there is no knowledge of the tree, there is no tree to fall, if there is no tree to fall, the tree does not make a sound.  Something must exist before it can act.

BaldFriede wrote: The laws of physics are derived from what we observe, either with one of our senses or with some scientific apparatus. But the fact that we only ever observed noise-making falling trees so far is not proof that all falling trees make noises; it only makes it highly probable. This is the same for all "laws" of nature we know. You can't derive the non-existence of a non-striped tiger from the fact that you only ever saw striped ones. And indeed there are some white tigers. Many creatures that were supposed to be "mystic" were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century; hundreds of new species of insects are discovered yearly. You may say: "I can derive the tree would make a sound from the physical theories we know to be true", but even the best physical theories don't describe incidents accurately (you could for example never fortell where a certain leaf of a tree will land when it falls). I recommend to read the very entertaining and informative book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black? The Unanswered Questions at the Frontiers of Science" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. Palaeontoligist Stephen J. Gould wrote a very interesting and enlightening preface to it, which deals with topics like this.

Understand your point of view, but any object with mass falling in an environement with atmosphere as the earth produces vibration, that's beyond any question.

Vibration causes a pressure in the air and that means sound in any point ofthe earth, things like that can't be discussed, if not my example of the TNT truck will be exactly the same.

1. Truck full of TNT, nobody around to wittnes it
2. Explosion
3. Sound, despite there's anybody to listen it.

The real question is if this sound matters at all being nobody there to listen it.

But in the earth there's no way a falling tree could not make sound, even if it falls over cusihons it will cause sounds. Now if you're talking aboout vacuum, yes it's true, it could maybe not cause sound because there's no air moleules that will push each others to transmit the vibration, in other words it will cause sound but it would be impossible to listen it.

Iván

.

Nope BF, laws of physics exist despite our observation, comets are in their orbits millions of years before man or even earth existed. Due to the law of inertia, eternally following an eliptic orbit created by the force of gravity of the sun (If there was not sun and planets, the trayectory would be linear).

"Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it."

Newton discovered this law in 1687, but the Halley Comet appears in the Bayeux Tapestry conmemorating the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Halley Comet passed near the earth in that exact year due to it's precise cicle).

We discover the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean this laws didn't existed long before we discovered them.

But the fact that we only ever observed noise-making falling trees so far is not proof that all falling trees make noises; it only makes it highly probable.

Again, if any object with mass collisions with other object with mass, will produce a vibration that will create a sound, this is undeniable in our atmosphere.

The Tunguska phenomenom (Siberia 1908 if I'm not wrong) wasn't heard by anybody (Only by nomads who were killed and one aparent witness (not reliable I guess),  because it happened far away of any populated area, but 40 Kms of forest were burned, trees were destroyed by a huge explosion without leaving a crater (Probably was made of ice).

Anybody could have said that we don't know if it produced a sound because nobody actually heard it (Or lived to tell us).

But the impact was detected by seismic stations in GB and USA (Even when the meteor exploded over he surface of the earth because air has molecules also).

So even when nobody alive was there to prove it, this comet or meteor produced a huge sound when crashed with the atmosphere, because both have mass.

This is the same for all "laws" of nature we know. You can't derive the non-existence of a non-striped tiger from the fact that you only ever saw striped ones. And indeed there are some white tigers.

You're making my point, the fact that nobody has seen a white tiger doesn't mean that doesn't exist, the same as saying that the fact that nobody listens a tree falling doesn't means it don't produce sound.

But this is a different thing, the existence of white tigers dont defy laws of nature, by the contrary their existence reinforces the fact that some genetic abnormality produce albino species, it's common to see kids from the black race absolutely white because they are albinos.

But laws of physics can't change in the atmosphers, trees have mass, earth has mass, colission of masses produces vibration, that's a fact.

And if you want proves, thousands of millions of trees have been destroyed by men, each and every one of this trees have produced a sound, so the chances that this fantastic spiritual non corporeal tree falls in a hidden place are astronomically low.

Use the Occam Razor argument, if there are two possibilities choose the logical one and that will be the answer. 

 Many creatures that were supposed to be "mystic" were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century; hundreds of new species of insects are discovered yearly.

The fact that tgis creatures were discovered in the XIX and XX Centuries is another prove of my theory.

Those species existed despite manhood never saw them, for the same reasoin the tree makes a sound despite there's no human to watch it.

You may say: "I can derive the tree would make a sound from the physical theories we know to be true", but even the best physical theories don't describe incidents accurately (you could for example never fortell where a certain leaf of a tree will land when it falls).

But we know the leaf will fall!!!!

Law of gravity doesn't say where an object will fall, it simply states that the object will fall atracted by the gravitational force of the Earth.

Law of Gravity doesn't say a leaf will fall 2, 3 or 4 meters away from the tree only says that any thing heavier than air will fall, leaves are heavier than air, ergo...leafs fall.

We can't know exactly how strong the tree will sound (I believe it can be calculated), but it will make a sound.

It would have be a tree without mass (A ghost tree), and that's absolutely impossible, because trees are solid, and even if you find a very soft tree almost like a pillow, it would produce a sound, softer, but still sound.

I recommend to read the very entertaining and informative book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?

I'm going to buy it, but the laws of physic work in a different way in space.

The Unanswered Questions at the Frontiers of Science" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. Palaeontoligist Stephen J. Gould wrote a very interesting and enlightening preface to it, which deals with topics like this.

Another one I'll get, but still laws of physic work

AtLossForWords wrote: goose wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Tony R wrote: You mean: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" Ok,so you edited it! <!-- Signature -->   The answer is yes!! How could the answer be anything other....?   So how do you know? You have not been around. You just derive that from having seen other trees fall and having heard the sound that makes. Let's phrase the question a little differently: "If a neutron in the nucleus of an atom decays and turns into a proton, does it emit an electron when no-one is there to observe it?" Anyone who knows a bit about quantum mechanics will tell you that it indeed makes a big difference whether there is an observer or not. Since a sound can be defined as a vibration through a medium, the laws of physics state that a falling tree (assuming it's not just eternally falling through a vacuum, that is) must indeed create a sound. It can't be proven, but then nothing can be proven without at least one assumption. No the tree does not make a sound.  Existence is relative to perception.  If there is no knowledge of the tree falling, does it really exist?  If there is no knowledge of the tree, there is no tree to fall, if there is no tree to fall, the tree does not make a sound.  Something must exist before it can act.

Says who?

Interesting argument, but it's a fallacy (False statements that seem true) Friedre, and I love the way you present them:

BaldFriede wrote: The laws of physics are derived from what we observe, either with one of our senses or with some scientific apparatus. Nope BF, laws of physics exist despite our observation, comets are in their orbits millions of years before man or even earth existed. Due to the law of inertia, eternally following an eliptic orbit created by the force of gravity of the sun (If there was not sun and planets, the trayectory would be linear). "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." Newton discovered this law in 1687, but the Halley Comet appears in the Bayeux Tapestry conmemorating the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Halley Comet passed near the earth in that exact year due to it's precise cicle). We discover the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean this laws didn't existed long before we discovered them. But the fact that we only ever observed noise-making falling trees so far is not proof that all falling trees make noises; it only makes it highly probable. Again, if any object with mass collisions with other object with mass, will produce a vibration that will create a sound, this is undeniable in our atmosphere. The Tunguska phenomenom (Siberia 1908 if I'm not wrong) wasn't heard by anybody (Only by nomads who were killed and one aparent witness (not reliable I guess),  because it happened far away of any populated area, but 40 Kms of forest were burned, trees were destroyed by a huge explosion without leaving a crater (Probably was made of ice). Anybody could have said that we don't know if it produced a sound because nobody actually heard it (Or lived to tell us). But the impact was detected by seismic stations in GB and USA (Even when the meteor exploded over he surface of the earth because air has molecules also). So even when nobody alive was there to prove it, this comet or meteor produced a huge sound when crashed with the atmosphere, because both have mass. This is the same for all "laws" of nature we know. You can't derive the non-existence of a non-striped tiger from the fact that you only ever saw striped ones. And indeed there are some white tigers. You're making my point, the fact that nobody has seen a white tiger doesn't mean that doesn't exist, the same as saying that the fact that nobody listens a tree falling doesn't means it don't produce sound. But this is a different thing, the existence of white tigers dont defy laws of nature, by the contrary their existence reinforces the fact that some genetic abnormality produce albino species, it's common to see kids from the black race absolutely white because they are albinos. But laws of physics can't change in the atmosphers, trees have mass, earth has mass, colission of masses produces vibration, that's a fact. And if you want proves, thousands of millions of trees have been destroyed by men, each and every one of this trees have produced a sound, so the chances that this fantastic spiritual non corporeal tree falls in a hidden place are astronomically low. Use the Occam Razor argument, if there are two possibilities choose the logical one and that will be the answer.   Many creatures that were supposed to be "mystic" were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century; hundreds of new species of insects are discovered yearly. The fact that tgis creatures were discovered in the XIX and XX Centuries is another prove of my theory. Those species existed despite manhood never saw them, for the same reasoin the tree makes a sound despite there's no human to watch it. You may say: "I can derive the tree would make a sound from the physical theories we know to be true", but even the best physical theories don't describe incidents accurately (you could for example never fortell where a certain leaf of a tree will land when it falls). But we know the leaf will fall!!!! Law of gravity doesn't say where an object will fall, it simply states that the object will fall atracted by the gravitational force of the Earth. Law of Gravity doesn't say a leaf will fall 2, 3 or 4 meters away from the tree only says that any thing heavier than air will fall, leaves are heavier than air, ergo...leafs fall. We can't know exactly how strong the tree will sound (I believe it can be calculated), but it will make a sound. It would have be a tree without mass (A ghost tree), and that's absolutely impossible, because trees are solid, and even if you find a very soft tree almost like a pillow, it would produce a sound, softer, but still sound. I recommend to read the very entertaining and informative book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black? I'm going to buy it, but the laws of physic work in a different way in space. The Unanswered Questions at the Frontiers of Science" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. Palaeontoligist Stephen J. Gould wrote a very interesting and enlightening preface to it, which deals with topics like this. Another one I'll get, but still laws of physic work

The Warren commision named to investigate the assasination of Kennedy will have used your arguments to prove the theory of the magic bullet.

Iván

I'm sure it's one of those silly laws from Neuton.

Ivan:

Although your basic treatise is...sound (pun intended), you are forgetting two things.

First, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which gives us (among other things) the theory of particle location simultaneity and particle spin simultaneity (i.e., that a particle can be in two places at once, and that it can spin both clockwise and counter-clockwise at the same time).  Based on Heisenberg, there always exists (as some have suggested) the possibility that a tree falling in an empty forest does not make a sound; i.e., that the simple fact that every tree any of us has ever witnessed falling in a forest has made a sound does not automatically mean that another tree in another forest will not make a sound - irrespective, by the way, of whether we are there to witness it.

In our environment, with an atmosphere and limited by the law of gravity there are two and only two chances:

1. If the tree has mass as tiny as you can imagine, and falls into the ground it will create a sound (Low or high depending of the amount of mass).
2. If there's a ghost tree, without any mass, it wouldn't sound, but it that case it wouldn't fall because it would be lighter than air.

In conclusion and using logic deduction beyond any doubt:

• Any thing or being that falls in earth has mass.
• Every tree that falls has mass
• Mass makes a sound when it falls

Ergo....Every tree that falls on earth makes a sound.

Physics in this cases don't lie.

Second, Schrodinger's Cat.  For those unaware, Schrodinger's Cat is as follows: We place a living cat into a steel chamber, along with a device containing a vial of hydrocyanic acid. There is, in the chamber, a very small amount of a radioactive substance. If even a single atom of the substance decays during the test period, a relay mechanism will trip a hammer, which will, in turn, break the vial and kill the cat. The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed.  Since we cannot know, the cat is both dead and alive according to quantum law, in a "superposition" of states. It is only when we break open the box and learn the condition of the cat that the superposition (better say suposition) is lost, and the cat becomes one or the other (dead or alive). This situation is sometimes called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed.

Please, when you understand this tell me, until then I will still believe in good old laws of physics in our reality.

Now I see two camps in this debate, and honestly, both are very wrong, though the 'tree does not make a sound' team is less wrong.

So both are wrong but one is more wrong ????

It all comes down to a simple misunderstanding of quantummechanics. Quantum mechanics teaches that Schrödingers cat lives in TWO different situations at the same time, contradictory what Ivan stated.

I understand your point of view, the cat is living two realities in one the cat is dead and in the other the cat is alive.

But in OUR reality despite our knowledge, the cat is or alive or dead, it's never alive and dead at the same time.

When we open the cage we find what happened, but it doesn't change the fact that it was already dead.

Any parallel reality is not our problem.

However, the same argument does not go for the falling tree. There is one thing that people overlook when applying QMech. That is that QMech only works on atomic scales. When reading maani's post we clearly read that there is an ATOMIC particle decaying. This is a quantummechanical item. The tree, however, is NOT. So whether or not a tree falls in the forest is NOT a physical question at all.

The second team is way wrong, and showing what I call 'blind belief in what THEY call physics'. Boys, sorry to tell this to you, but physics stepped beyond Newton's law 100 years ago. You are totally non-scientific if you DON'T ask yourselves the question: "hey wait a second, I haven't seen the tree falling-that-I-don't-witness", HOW do I KNOW it really makes a sound! The answer is: You DON'T! You only BELIEVE it does because you BELIEVE in some laws of physics.

Ok man, you can believe for a hundreed years that an object with mass that collisions with another object with mass won't make a sound, but in our reality, things don't work like that.

Until you prove it with a valid experimet, sorry but I can't believe.

You don't even know if those laws apply if no witness is there! These are not physics question, because they can not be verified by experiment(all experiment would disrupt what you were going to find out, having a parallel with QMech! ). These are philosophical questions, and as such, scientific. If you blindly believe anything you haven't even come up with yourself, man, am I going to say you're a lemming.

In other words we're wrong, but there's no experiment that proves we're wrong because it will disrupt reality.

Honestly, I believe you still haven't learn in which environemnt this quantum laws work yet.

Rust wrote: AtLossForWords wrote: goose wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Tony R wrote: You mean: "If a tree falls in the woods,and nobody witnesses it does it make a sound?" Ok,so you edited it![IMG]alt=LOL src="style=" border=0 pointer; cursor: http: forum smileys onclick="AddSmileyIcon'smileys/smiley36.gif'" smiley36.gif www.progarchives> <!-- Signature -->   The answer is yes!! How could the answer be anything other....?   So how do you know? You have not been around. You just derive that from having seen other trees fall and having heard the sound that makes. Let's phrase the question a little differently: "If a neutron in the nucleus of an atom decays and turns into a proton, does it emit an electron when no-one is there to observe it?" Anyone who knows a bit about quantum mechanics will tell you that it indeed makes a big difference whether there is an observer or not. Since a sound can be defined as a vibration through a medium, the laws of physics state that a falling tree (assuming it's not just eternally falling through a vacuum, that is) must indeed create a sound. It can't be proven, but then nothing can be proven without at least one assumption. No the tree does not make a sound.  Existence is relative to perception.  If there is no knowledge of the tree falling, does it really exist?  If there is no knowledge of the tree, there is no tree to fall, if there is no tree to fall, the tree does not make a sound.  Something must exist before it can act. Says who?

Rationally thinking, all existence is relative to perception.  If I were to no someone, but you didn't, wouldn't that person be more real to me than he is to you?  Could you honestly say that the person I know exists when you have no evidence other than my word?  The same goes for any objects.  Things have levels of reality, it's kind of like a Platonic cave. 

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, it makes the sound of one hand clapping...

(Put that in your zenkoancyberpipe and smoke it...)

Peace.

[P.S. to ALFW: How do we know you exist?  Can you prove it?]

Interesting argument, but it's a fallacy (False statements that seem true) Friedre, and I love the way you present them:

BaldFriede wrote: The laws of physics are derived from what we observe, either with one of our senses or with some scientific apparatus. Nope BF, laws of physics exist despite our observation, comets are in their orbits millions of years before man or even earth existed. Due to the law of inertia, eternally following an eliptic orbit created by the force of gravity of the sun (If there was not sun and planets, the trayectory would be linear). "Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it." Newton discovered this law in 1687, but the Halley Comet appears in the Bayeux Tapestry conmemorating the Battle of Hastings in 1066 (Halley Comet passed near the earth in that exact year due to it's precise cicle). We discover the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean this laws didn't existed long before we discovered them. But the fact that we only ever observed noise-making falling trees so far is not proof that all falling trees make noises; it only makes it highly probable. Again, if any object with mass collisions with other object with mass, will produce a vibration that will create a sound, this is undeniable in our atmosphere. The Tunguska phenomenom (Siberia 1908 if I'm not wrong) wasn't heard by anybody (Only by nomads who were killed and one aparent witness (not reliable I guess),  because it happened far away of any populated area, but 40 Kms of forest were burned, trees were destroyed by a huge explosion without leaving a crater (Probably was made of ice). Anybody could have said that we don't know if it produced a sound because nobody actually heard it (Or lived to tell us). But the impact was detected by seismic stations in GB and USA (Even when the meteor exploded over he surface of the earth because air has molecules also). So even when nobody alive was there to prove it, this comet or meteor produced a huge sound when crashed with the atmosphere, because both have mass. This is the same for all "laws" of nature we know. You can't derive the non-existence of a non-striped tiger from the fact that you only ever saw striped ones. And indeed there are some white tigers. You're making my point, the fact that nobody has seen a white tiger doesn't mean that doesn't exist, the same as saying that the fact that nobody listens a tree falling doesn't means it don't produce sound. But this is a different thing, the existence of white tigers dont defy laws of nature, by the contrary their existence reinforces the fact that some genetic abnormality produce albino species, it's common to see kids from the black race absolutely white because they are albinos. But laws of physics can't change in the atmosphers, trees have mass, earth has mass, colission of masses produces vibration, that's a fact. And if you want proves, thousands of millions of trees have been destroyed by men, each and every one of this trees have produced a sound, so the chances that this fantastic spiritual non corporeal tree falls in a hidden place are astronomically low. Use the Occam Razor argument, if there are two possibilities choose the logical one and that will be the answer.   Many creatures that were supposed to be "mystic" were discovered in the late 19th and early 20th century; hundreds of new species of insects are discovered yearly. The fact that tgis creatures were discovered in the XIX and XX Centuries is another prove of my theory. Those species existed despite manhood never saw them, for the same reasoin the tree makes a sound despite there's no human to watch it. You may say: "I can derive the tree would make a sound from the physical theories we know to be true", but even the best physical theories don't describe incidents accurately (you could for example never fortell where a certain leaf of a tree will land when it falls). But we know the leaf will fall!!!! Law of gravity doesn't say where an object will fall, it simply states that the object will fall atracted by the gravitational force of the Earth. Law of Gravity doesn't say a leaf will fall 2, 3 or 4 meters away from the tree only says that any thing heavier than air will fall, leaves are heavier than air, ergo...leafs fall. We can't know exactly how strong the tree will sound (I believe it can be calculated), but it will make a sound. It would have be a tree without mass (A ghost tree), and that's absolutely impossible, because trees are solid, and even if you find a very soft tree almost like a pillow, it would produce a sound, softer, but still sound. I recommend to read the very entertaining and informative book "Why Aren't Black Holes Black? I'm going to buy it, but the laws of physic work in a different way in space. The Unanswered Questions at the Frontiers of Science" by Robert M. Hazen and Maxine Singer. Palaeontoligist Stephen J. Gould wrote a very interesting and enlightening preface to it, which deals with topics like this. Another one I'll get, but still laws of physic work

The Warren commision named to investigate the assasination of Kennedy will have used your arguments to prove the theory of the magic bullet.

Iván

Please, when you understand this tell me, until then I will still believe in good old laws of physics in our reality.

Oh please Ivan, why don't you go study this yourself? You seem willing to believe in one part of physics of OUR reality, but yet not the other part, QuantumMechanics. Those laws you believe in fail to explain why elektrons can absorb and emit photons, why one elektron interferes with itself when going through the two-slit experiment and so on...

So both are wrong but one is more wrong ????

Exactly. It it's like: one team says it's blue, the other it's red, but actually it's GREEN.

I understand your point of view, the cat is living two realities in one the cat is dead and in the other the cat is alive.

No the cat is living in ONE reality. Failure to comprehend that is failure to understand QMech. He is simultaneously dead and alive.

But in OUR reality despite our knowledge, the cat is or alive or dead, it's never alive and dead at the same time.

No this is the 'reality' in which we are actively measuring. Measuring interferes. In the reality that we are not looking the cat is alive and dead.

When we open the cage we find what happened, but it doesn't change the fact that it was already dead.

No! When we open the cage we force the cat to take a stand: dead or alive.

Any parallel reality is not our problem.

Since we went to investigate atomic interactions, it IS our problem.

Ok man, you can believe for a hundreed years that an object with mass that collisions with another object with mass won't make a sound, but in our reality, things don't work like that.

Wrong again, this is only in the part of our reality where we are looking.

Until you prove it with a valid experimet, sorry but I can't believe.

That's the whole problem, experimenting disrupts nature. There is no way you can prove a tree makes no sound when it falls when noone is looking, just as much as you can't disprove it.

In other words we're wrong, but there's no experiment that proves we're wrong because it will disrupt reality.

No, we don't KNOW whether we're wrong or not. That's the whole point.

Honestly, I believe you still haven't learn in which environemnt this quantum laws work yet.

Right, and you know nothing about law. You simply misunderstand QMech's theory, and that's that.

Yes it is, you are admitimng laws of physic exist so:

1. Trees have mass
2. Mass falls becauseit's pulled by gravity force.
3. Whren mass collisions with mass there's vibration.
4. Vibration inside the atmosphere produces sound

So any tree with mass no matter how special it is, when falling into the ground will produce a sound.

Any special and spiritual tree without mass will never fall because as helium would be lighter than air.

So any tree that falls into the ground produce a sound no matter if there is 1, 2, 1'000,000 persons to verify that fact.

I have a lot of posts to answer;

First to JrKasperov:

ivan_2068 wrote: Please, when you understand this tell me, until then I will still believe in good old laws of physics in our reality. Oh please Ivan, why don't you go study this yourself?  I won't study another career to justify a silly question, I already studied one, in which I'm very good by the way, and I can explain everything I said, something you admit are not able to do. All the things in between mean nothing because you later say: In other words we're wrong, but there's no experiment that proves we're wrong because it will disrupt reality. No, we don't KNOW whether we're wrong or not. That's the whole point. This proves my whole point, the cat is dead or alive, but we don't know, as simple as that without mathematical formulas that can't be provede in reality.

But all of this means nothing because you said before:

JrKasperov wrote:

When reading maani's post we clearly read that there is an ATOMIC particle decaying. This is a quantummechanical item. The tree, however, is NOT. So whether or not a tree falls in the forest is NOT a physical question at all.

I may accept the posibility (Because I'm not able to contradict Quantum Mecchanics) that the cat could be dead and alive in theory, a theory that can't be proved with experience (But hobnestly I can't believe it unless you prove it in real terms, not in mathematic formulas).

So, we were talking about falling trees, not about dead cats.

In other words Maani's argument and all this quantum masturbation and atomic particles dacaying means nothing in the case of the tree falling in the desert forest.

I admit I don't know a word about Quantum mechanics, but I know a bit about physics:

• A Tree falls to the earth because the gravity pulls it...THIS IS PHYSICS
• The impact of two bodies of mass produces vibration......THIS IS PHYSICS
• Vibration produces sound.....THIS IS PHYSICS

So why does he includes it here?

Maybe it's not Quantum Physics, but it's still valid.

I admit that Quantum physics are far more advanced than Newton's laws but Just a couple of questions JrKAsperov:

• Is the law of gravity wrong?
• Does vibration produce sound in our atmopsphere?

That's all.

Sorry, one more question: How many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle, without jostling?

Bald Friedre said:

It is not a fallacy; I may not have made myself clear enough: The laws may exist without us, but our knowledge and understanding (and hence formulation) of them is derived from observation only. Yes it is, you are admitimng laws of physic exist so: Trees have mass Mass falls becauseit's pulled by gravity force. Whren mass collisions with mass there's vibration. Vibration inside the atmosphere produces sound So any tree with mass no matter how special it is, when falling into the ground will produce a sound. Any special and spiritual tree without mass will never fall because as helium would be lighter than air. So any tree that falls into the ground produce a sound no matter if there is 1, 2, 1'000,000 persons to verify that fact. To quote from the preface of "Why Aren't Black Holes Black?" Please, first Quantum mechanics, then wormholes,  now black holes, we're talking about a simpl4e tree falling. Please quote me any part where Robert M. Hazen or Maxine Singer say a falling tree doesn't produce a sound if there's nobody near to listen it, if not, this book is as pertinent to our example as the dead cat.

Eddible Budah wrote:

U c, The more u can determine the condition of a particle, the less u can determine its direction (and vise versa) - (im a bit rusty with my quantum).  Now, placing this with the falling tree scenario, the particles that are disturbed by the tree falling will not disappear or appear in the presence of an observer, because an observer hears (observes) the sound.  However, the sound may take on a different 'condition of existance/non-existance' (for want of a better phrase.  Also, just because you are present at the trees felling, is it possible that the sound that you hear be the tree falling or of some other disturbance caused by the reappearance of antiparticle(s) in this realm of existance that has been disturbed by our observation..... as particles have been shown by experiment to travel faster than the speed of light (some physicians use the theory of these particles travelling thru 'wormholes'). So the arguement would be that if the observer is not there, then the disturbance of the particles would have different conditions than they would if the observer is there.  However, that is assuming that u know the conditions of the particles that create the sound(waves) in the first place, which means that you wouldn't know whether these particles existed in this plane of existance....... Isnt Quantum fun.

In other words, not even the scientists agree? Or do they spend all their lives trying to prove something that's beyond prove?

oliverstoned wrote: There are others worlds where these rules (physics) don't apply... Id belive you if the maths behind quantum wern't so damned contradictory.... Can't agree more.

Bald Friedre wrote:

JrKASperov is right. The Schrödinger's cat paradoxon is so very disturbing because the equations REALLY say the cat is alive and dead AT THE SAME TIME. It is not as simple as Ivan puts it, that it is either dead or alive. That would not have been disturbing at all; no-one would have had a problem with that.

Ok, neither I or most of us know a word about Quantum physics and scientists don't 100% agree because they can't experiment.

Lets go back to the real world, a real tree in our real atmosphere and to real vibration.  

Iván

I get your point, but please, don't reduce it to trees, any object with mass that falls produce a sound.

This has been experimented, not only with trees, but with all sort of objects, in our limited reality, anything with mass can fall and if it does, will produce a sound

I may even admit the posibility of a tree without mass, but An object without mass won't be atracted by a low force of ravity as the one of the earth, and for that reason it won't fall.

But the laws of nature only need a single exception, and we have to rethink. The best example for that is the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley from the year 1887. They tried to measure the speed of the earth through the supposed "aether". Their idea was to measure the speed of light in one direction of the movement of the earth and then in the opposite direction. The difference between these 2 speeds should have been twice the speed of the earth. The apparatus they measured with was fine enough to measure the expected difference of the speed of light. What they did not know about is that the speed of light is constant for every viewer. So far the Galileo-transformations had been sufficient for adding speed; if two bodies move away from each other in opposite directions, one with the speed A and the other with the speed B, the speed relative to each other will be A+B . But this Galileo-transformation is not valid for objects close to the speed of light. The famous Lorentz-transformations apply for objects close to the speed of light. Had anyone suggested these Galileo-transformations before the experiment of Michelson and Morley, every physicist would have tapped the forehead with a finger. And it took an Einstein to accurately explain the phenomenon.

Again you make my point, the fact that Michelson and Morley failled in their experiment, the speed of earth didn't changed, the only thing that's obvious is that Michelson and Morley didn't knew some facts, and because of that wrong or inccomplete knowledge  they were not able to messure the speed of Earth travelling around the sun.

So the speed of earth was the same in 1887 and when Einstein discovered the truth.

Our ignorance doesn't change the facts.

So yes, as far as we know a tree that falls in the woods will make a sound, even if we don't observe it. But we can't be sure about that. No matter how often we measure a certain phenomenon and how often the result of this measuring will be in accord with the theory, it takes only one single aberration from the rule, and the theory collapses.

This will be an aberration caused by some mysterious and external factor, but the effects of this aberration will be much greater than just causing the cesation of sound, and this has never happened.

And the fact that any aberration like this could happen, doesn't destroy the laws of physics, only proves that something exceptional happened.

Have you heard of The Occam Razor principle?

Bald Friedre wrote:

You still do not get my point. The so-called "Laws of Physics" are derived from observation. As far as we know, from all observation we had so far, a tree that falls WILL make a sound, whether we are there to observe it or not. I get your point, but please, don't reduce it to trees, any object with mass that falls produce a sound. This has been experimented, not only with trees, but with all sort of objects, in our limited reality, anything with mass can fall and if it does, will produce a sound I may even admit the posibility of a tree without mass, but An object without mass won't be atracted by a low force of ravity as the one of the earth, and for that reason it won't fall. But the laws of nature only need a single exception, and we have to rethink. The best example for that is the famous experiment of Michelson and Morley from the year 1887. They tried to measure the speed of the earth through the supposed "aether". Their idea was to measure the speed of light in one direction of the movement of the earth and then in the opposite direction. The difference between these 2 speeds should have been twice the speed of the earth. The apparatus they measured with was fine enough to measure the expected difference of the speed of light. What they did not know about is that the speed of light is constant for every viewer. So far the Galileo-transformations had been sufficient for adding speed; if two bodies move away from each other in opposite directions, one with the speed A and the other with the speed B, the speed relative to each other will be A+B . But this Galileo-transformation is not valid for objects close to the speed of light. The famous Lorentz-transformations apply for objects close to the speed of light. Had anyone suggested these Galileo-transformations before the experiment of Michelson and Morley, every physicist would have tapped the forehead with a finger. And it took an Einstein to accurately explain the phenomenon. Again you make my point, the fact that Michelson and Morley failled in their experiment, the speed of earth didn't changed, the only thing that's obvious is that Michelson and Morley didn't knew some facts, and because of that wrong or inccomplete knowledge  they were not able to messure the speed of Earth travelling around the sun. So the speed of earth was the same in 1887 and when Einstein discovered the truth. Our ignorance doesn't change the facts. So yes, as far as we know a tree that falls in the woods will make a sound, even if we don't observe it. But we can't be sure about that. No matter how often we measure a certain phenomenon and how often the result of this measuring will be in accord with the theory, it takes only one single aberration from the rule, and the theory collapses. This will be an aberration caused by some mysterious and external factor, but the effects of this aberration will be much greater than just causing the cesation of sound, and this has never happened. And the fact that any aberration like this could happen, doesn't destroy the laws of physics, only proves that something exceptional happened. Have you heard of The Occam Razor principle? Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler. In this case the posibility of a tree not making a sounds is not even equally predictable to the one of the tree making the sound, so you don't have any chance but to choose the simpler and logical one that is: There's not a single object with mass that wouldn't produce a sound, it has never been found any aberration that will only happen if The object (Lets say tree) doesn't have mass or There's some vacuum in the exact moment the tree falls. If the tree don't has mass, it wouldn't fall so it's impossible. If there's a vacuum, many things will be altered, not just the sound (or the lack of it), and this has never happened because it would had bbeen already measured. I taked before about the Tunguska phenomenom in 1908, lots of scientists created different thesis: It was anti matery in collision with matery Unfortunately for this idea, careful C-14 measurements of a tree nearer the blast fail to show an increase in 1909 (One year after the phenomenon happened) A UFO: Proved false because there was no remain. A black hole that hit earth in the Tunguska zone, and exit it in the Atlantic ocean but microbarographs, which recorded the air waves of the explosion, didn't record any anaomalous air waves from the predicted exit point in the Atlantic. Plus the fact that there was no crater. But you know what was the truth? The simple and logical one, "an exploding cometary nucleus or nucleus fragment was responsible for the Tunguska event. The generally accepted runs something like this: Above central Siberia on the morning of Jun. 30, 1908, a small comet or cometary fragment entered the atmosphere from behind the sun and moved in a southeast to northwest direction. It was composed of some 30,000 tons of water, methane, and ammonia ice with traces of silicates and iron oxides. Penetrating the atmosphere at approximately 60 km/s (130,000 mph), the object created an intense shock wave which wrapped tightly around its nose. As it descended, its nucleus exploded (possibly 3 times) approximately 8 km above the Earth's surface. A huge black cloud immediately appeared following the explosion which released 1023 ergs of energy. A heat wave with a temperature of approximately 16.6 million degrees Celsius at the focus was generated that had a tree-scorching effect for a radius of 15 km. The heat wave was followed by air shock waves which disfigured or toppled 80 million trees occupying approximately 8000 km² of Siberian taiga, and triggered a seismic wave of Richter magnitude 5, yet left no crater. The dust from the tail of the comet moved away from the sun and provided anomalously bright night sky in Europe and parts of Western Russia." In simple language, a comet mainly formed by ice. Of course the scientific explanations have been copied from other sites, I couldn't elaborate any one as anybody will know, because that's not my field. Occam's Razor theory works. For more information about the experiment of Michelson and Morley, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment Just did, but I can't understand most of it to be honest.

Iván

I don't know what you don't understand:

First, let me explain the reason of the  Colors:

• Black font is used by Bald Friedre,
• I use different colors to separete my answers,  Red is what I answer with my rudimentary knowledge and blue is what I quoted from other sources:

Each of my answers (In red when using my own arguments and in blue when quoting others) is made after a parragraph written by Bald Friedre.

1. My first parragraph is an answer to a phrase of Friedre who said that laws of physic are only consequences of observation, and each case has to be observed indivudually...... I say that studying several cases and after expeimentation you can create laws of physic that in our evironment will work.
2. My second parragraph in red  is an answer to Friedres aseveration that the failled experiment of Michelsen and Morley (An example provided by her)  proves that the laws of physics are not accurate .... Woith my answer I trie to make a point that the experiment of Michelson and Morley only proved that they used wrong facts, not that the laws of physics don't work.
3. The third answer I make is to  state that a single (and not existing) aberration or fail in the laws of Physics (She says that we don't know if a single tree in the earth defies the laws of Physics) doesn't imply that the mentioned laws are false, I use the Occam Razor argument because instead of believing on an imaginary tree that nobody has ever seen and doesn't make a sound, you must believe the simple answer and that is that every tree in the world makes sound when falling despite there's an observer or not.
4. I also use the Tunguska Phenomenum example (Which I explained several posts ago) , because many imaginative explanations were given to an explosion that happened in 1908 in adesertic zone of Siberia without a wittness (40 Kms of forests were destroyed without a crater), some scientists said it was an antimatery rock, others said it was a black hole and the last group believed it was a UFOand the answer was the simpler and logical, an ice comet that expoded in the Atmosphere over Siberia. This reinforces the Occam Razor Principle, the simplest explanation is the accurate.
5. The fourth answer I make is to state that I can't fully understand the experiment made by Michelsen and Morley.

Bluetailfly wrote:

If you can't follow my answers is probably because you haven't followed all the thread, but one thing is clear: I'm only a person that tries to think with logic and believes in laws of physic. I try to follow an argument using my rudimentary knowledge of physics and logic.

I love to argue and I'm faithful to my believes, that's why I follow an argument and stand on my beliefs.

I don't need to prove anything to anybody, I think I know who I am, that's enough for me, I don't have any personal disagreement with Bald Friedre or use her to reafirm myself, she defends her beliefs and I defend mine.

I believe that's the point of a Forum.

Iván

Thanks Geck0, my only doubt is that my poor English could be hard to understand, but now I know I was barely clear.

EDIT: Thanks Bald Friedre for a very interesting debate.

Ivan,

I appreciate the intensity of your response, but please realize I was sort of joking around, especially in my second paragraph (I thought the "Or not, just wondering" sort of gave it away). So now that you've taken it all seriously and "put me in my place", I feel shamefaced and feel sort of excluded from the "reindeer games" so to speak.

I'll back off, it's cool...I was just trying to be affable...I guess my style was a little too obtuse. I wasn't trying to "horn in" on you and BF's argument, merely trying to add a little of my own thoughts (plus a litte levity) to the proceedings, but hey, I know when to back off, I know when I've bothered another and that they are now bristly and have their guard up. I'll just move on, and try to put this behind me and all that sort of thing...

NO GENESIS ALBUMS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HERESY