does the tree make sound?

Question

if any way of comunication divides in three... emisor, canal and receptor so the tree make sound waves then the emisor ( tree) and canal ( waves ) are present can we say that the tree make a sound but the receptor is missing ? or that waves become sound only if a receptor is present ?? bottom line, does it make a sound??

Answer 1

Consider four types of receptor adjacent to one another:

1. A person with good hearing,
2. Another person with identically good hearing,
3. A completely deaf person,
4. A sensitive microphone plugged in to a recording device,

5. Five identical trees with several limbs and branches;

all poised to fall at the same distance from receptors 1. - 4. on a still day in the same not very dense forest with the same hard ground around them. The trees and their immediate surroundings are reasonably clearly visible through the other firmly anchored and separated trees in the intervening forest,

6. Assorted, extremely efficient earplugs, capable of completely blocking out sound, and
7. Several telescopes.

A. The first tree falls. The people all see it fall. The ground around the tree shudders. Persons 1. and 2. hear the sound(s), lasting for a certain time. All see leaves around them flutter, as the sound waves pass by. Person 3. doesn't hear anything. The recording device 4. records the sound.

Later they compare their experiences.

Persons 1. and 2. describe what they heard, agree that they heard the same sound and, on playing the recording, also agree that the recording device recorded it faithfully. (E.g., they agree that the sound of certain limbs successively hitting the ground could be heard distinctly.) All note that the ground shuddered and leaves fluttered.

Person 3. heard nothing, but acknowledges that a sound must have been made because three independent witnesses: persons 1. and 2. and recording device 5. all "heard" the same thing. (He trust Persons 1. and 2.; all are experienced scientific observers, and promised to describe their own experiences faithfully. In adddition, he saw the ground around the tree shudder, and the leaves near him flutter; evidently SOMETHING passed by, presumably a sound wave.)

B. Person 2. now has very efficient earplugs put in his/her ears. The second tree falls. All see it fall. Ground shudders, leaves flutter. Person 1. says "I heard the same sound." Persons 2. and 3. say "We heard nothing." Person 2. takes out the earplugs. They play the recording. Person 1. says "That's the sound I heard; it's the same as before." Person 2. agrees that the recording is the same sound as before, and has no reason to doubt Person 1. Indeed, he confirms what Person 1. has just said. After all, he saw an identical tree fall, the ground shudder, leaves flutter, and is scientist enough to know that an event like that under essentially identical circumstances will have an essentially identical outcome. (This is a macroscopic, not quantum event.) All the auditory and recording equipment confirm that reasonable expectation. He points out that although he, Person 2,. was incapable of hearing the sound immediately after it was made, it was nevertheless heard and recorded at the place in question. Person 3. says, "Well, I couldn't hear the sound at all, being completely deaf. Now, because of the earplugs, Person 2. had my experience, namely, heard no sound. But evidently it was there, because both Person 1. and the recording 'heard' it, Person 2., on removing the earplugs, found that the recording sounded the same as before. And then there's the evidence of the ground shuddering and the leaves fluttering! I believe it. I trust these people; the sound was definitely there even though Person 2. couldn't hear it under the changed circumstances, and I naturally couldn't hear it anyway."

C. Persons 1. and 2. now have efficient earplugs put into their ears. They all watch the third tree fall, ground shudder, and leaves flutter once more. No-one can now hear the tree fall, directly. But when they take the earplugs out, there is the same sound again, on the recording. "Well, I'm damned," Persons 1. and 2. say, "It's the same sound again! Evidently neither of us ourselves actually have to be able to hear it directly. The recorder can be trusted to faithfully record it on its own without us physically hearing it at all. And it does so after the ground around the tree has shuddered and the leaves flutter in our own same vicinity." Person 3. has no reason to distrust them. He too saw the ground shudder and the leaves flutter. He is prepared to believe that the same sound was in fact recorded once more.

D. Then someone says (writing it down for the deaf person), "Why don't we all go away to a far distance, but peer through the forest with our telescopes to watch the next tree fall. We'll leave the recorder here, but we'll be able to see if the leaves flutter right after the tree falls." They all do that. The fourth tree falls. The ground around shudders. The leaves flutter. They come back and check the recorder. Persons 1. and 2. say "The sound is there, identical to all the other sounds heard when every other tree fell; what's more, it was recorded after the ground shuddered and as the leaves fluttered."

E. They finally agree to carry the recorder away altogether and watch the fifth tree fall from the same distance as in case D. preceding. They see the tree fall. They see the ground shudder. The leaves flutter, but they hear nothing.

They say, "Look, let's discuss this as rational people who don't believe in magic or the supernatural. We had a whole series of set-ups in which we gradually reduced the actual presence of people or a device capable of 'hearing' the sounds produced when trees fell. Yet throughout these series of experiments, the same sound was doggedly there, always being 'heard' by the people or the recording device still capable of hearing it. It always came after the ground shuddered and as the leaves fluttered. We just saw that same sequence of events after the fifth tree fell. We conclude that the sound is made, whether or not there is any person or thing there to 'hear' it. IT MADE A SOUND!"

Answer 2

Yes it does make a sound, rember if a buterfly flaps its wings, tornados are in mongolia( or whatever it was). Just because nobody was there to record it doesnt mean it didnt make a sound. But how do you know the tree fell down, a helecopter could have picked it up and then layed it gently down. Just because something looks the way it should doesnt mean thats the way it happened.

Answer 3

Depends on what your definition of sound is... if a sound is percieved by an observer then no it does not make a sound without a recipient. If a sound is just a compression wave that does not require an oberver then yes it does make a sound.

Depends on the definition of sound... my dictionary says "something that is heard" which suggests there is a recipient.

So it does not make a sound.

Answer 4

... more than one appendage attempting to create sound by striking an absent counterpart....