Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

First Acoustic Black Hole Created

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the for-music-that-really-sucks dept.

Science 165

KentuckyFC writes "One of the many curious properties of Bose Einstein Condensates (BECs) is that the flow of sound through them is governed by the same equations that describe how light is bent by a gravitational field. Now, a group of Israeli physicists have exploited this idea to create an acoustic black hole in a BEC. The team created a supersonic flow of atoms within the BEC, a flow that prevents any phonon caught in it from making headway. The region where the flow changes from subsonic to supersonic is an event horizon, because any phonon unlucky enough to stray into the supersonic region can never escape. The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it makes possible: the first observation of Hawking radiation. Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream of phononic radiation away from an acoustic black hole would be the first observation of Hawking radiation. The team hasn't gotten that far yet, but it can't be long now before either they or their numerous competitors make this leap."

cancel ×

165 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the news is where? (5, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281191)

I got a shot Bose amp here, and any sound you put in turns into silence. Voila, accustic black hole.

I'd sell this baby for cheap, too!

Re:And the news is where? (4, Funny)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281231)

I'm giving my Bosewave radio new respect and standing a couple steps away from it just in case.

Re:And the news is where? (0, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281617)


Bosewave radio

Hey how are those things? They seem a bit pricey, are they really worth it?

.

Re:And the news is where? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281717)

I'd mod you off-topic but since this is /. I think it's interesting.

Re:And the news is where? (1, Offtopic)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281849)


Yeah, it is off topic but I have karma to burn and want to know.

Most people in the real world may say "It sounds good" and leave it at that.
A /.er may post links to logarithmic scaled charts with frequency responses, graphs with acoustical data, YouTube videos of someone installing Linux on it, etc. then end it off with "It sounds good"
:)

Re:And the news is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28283885)

Really? You can install Linux on a Bose Wave radio?! ;)

Re:And the news is where? (0, Offtopic)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281843)

I saw one on display at a mall. The sound quality was fairly good to my ear, but the price was astronomical. I'd never pay full price for one.

Re:And the news is where? (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282611)

Terrible. They rely entirely on marketing and placebo effect; actual sound quality is if anything worse than your ordinary off-the-shelf.

Re:And the news is where? (2, Funny)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282953)

I think "Bose" is just the American way to write "Böse", which is German for "evil". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? *puts on double-layered tinfoil overall*

Re:And the news is where? (1)

saskboy (600063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283907)

And speaking of black holes, I had one for lunch. I put a meat patty and a veggie patty into the same burger. The Meat and the Anti-Meat annihilated each other and I was left with a Black Hole Burger.

Re:And the news is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281493)

I'd sell this baby for cheap, too!

Wow, this research is paying off already! Finally someone is selling a BOSE for what it's worth.

Re:And the news is where? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281819)

What happens when they shut the thing off - do you suddenly hear all the sound that got gobbled up??

Re:And the news is where? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282285)

Hmm... I can only judge it by my shot Bose amp, and no, it doesn't make a sound when you switch it off. Actually, it seems to be permanently on, because even when I flip the switch you still don't hear anything.

OMG, I hope I didn't break the sound universe.

I guess this proves... (3, Funny)

thewiz (24994) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281201)

that in space, no one can hear you scre...

Re:I guess this proves... (5, Funny)

Abreu (173023) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283513)

Actually, I have another reference to make...

So, does this mean that the octirion bells in Unseen University clock tower emit Hawking Radiation?

at last, the dream is realized! (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281223)

"In one ear and out the other."

Re:at last, the dream is realized! (2, Funny)

damien_kane (519267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282247)

"In one ear and out the other."

Except that, in this case, it went in one ear and got stuck.

So...Bose sucks? (-1, Troll)

brouski (827510) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281233)

Hardly a revolutionary finding, is it?

Admit it, you came here to post the same thing.

Re:So...Bose sucks? (2, Insightful)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281401)

Nah, Bose doesn't suck so much as you can get similar quality gear for a better price. It's swanky audio gear for people who don't know anything about audio gear.

Re:So...Bose sucks? (2, Funny)

bFusion (1433853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281583)

It's like Monster Cables for speakers.

Re:So...Bose sucks? (1)

Fuzi719 (1107665) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281733)

or its like iPhone for a cellphone. :-) Popularity depends on the gullibility of the buyer.

Re:So...Bose sucks? (1)

bFusion (1433853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281835)

At least noticing someone using an iPhone offers you the benefit of knowing what type of person s/he is in advance. :)

Re:So...Bose sucks? (2, Insightful)

FusionFox (1505879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282281)

In the same way that finding somebody that judges a person based on what cellphone they use is a nice way to know what type of person they are in advance?

Re:So...Bose sucks? (1)

bFusion (1433853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282323)

Yeah, but that remains hidden until I open my mouth. :)

Consumer applications (1)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281237)

I can't wait for the noise-cancelling headphones using this technology.

Sort of Hawking Radiation (4, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281245)

That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing. It's not true HR, but it would be a nice demonstration if they were to get it to work, especially if they could show some sort of analog to black hole "evaporation," which is the main implication of HR. I suppose that should naturally happen as the separation of the pairs sucks energy from the BEC and slows the fluid inside, shrinking the event-horizon-analogue.

Also, let's get properly flowing BEC layers in our noise canceling headphones!

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281405)

Ok, so the Bose Noise Canceling headphones create these so called "Acoustic Blackholes" in the ears of the headphones to eliminate noise. But wont the radiation cause brain cancer or something??

This will never sell!

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28282535)

Except that in the term "Hawking radiation" they're referring to the motion of particles being radiated outwards, not radioactivity.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (4, Interesting)

DriedClexler (814907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282075)

That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.

Not a physicist, but here's how I think the metaphor between the experiment and the real thing is supposed to work:

Speed of light: maximum speed information can travel through a vacuum ("the void")
Speed of sound: maximum speed information can travel through a medium composed of atoms ("substance")

(When aircraft go supersonic, the air they run into is incapable of "preparing" to be hit, in a manner of speaking...)

We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound. And just as you can't go fast enough to come back through an event horizon, information can't propagate fast enough in the experiment to go back across the subsonic/supersonic boundary. This shows us what it looks like to be in a situation like that of a black hole.

By the way, there's a similar, cheaper experiment you can do: pop a hole in a pressurized container. The gas cannot escape it (at the outlet) faster than the local speed of sound, which is obtained whenever the ratio of pressure inside to pressure outside exceeds a critical value. One gas dynamics professor said I can think of it like this: "even though a higher pressure ratio creates a greater pressure potential difference, the gas inside the tank cannot 'learn' of the greater difference because that would require information to go *into* the tank, *against* the gas that is escaping at the speed of sound"

Kind of like in the setup described in the article...

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (4, Informative)

blincoln (592401) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282833)

We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound.

We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. We create things that travel faster than the speed of light in other media all the time. The blue Cherenkov Radiation glow in fission reactors is caused by particles exceeding the speed of light in water, and creating a light shockwave analogous to the sound shockwave that e.g. supersonic aircraft produce.

/nitpick

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283053)

That's one of the coolest bits of not very useful knowledge I've seen a long time. (Although I should have known this, and mostly did.)

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (3, Interesting)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283753)

Arguably, light travels faster in a Casimir cavity than in a vacuum. Really, there's no reason to suppose that "emtpy space" represents the medium through which light flows the fastest, merely that it's somewhere close.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (2, Informative)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282899)

One gas dynamics professor said I can think of it like this: "even though a higher pressure ratio creates a greater pressure potential difference, the gas inside the tank cannot 'learn' of the greater difference because that would require information to go *into* the tank, *against* the gas that is escaping at the speed of sound"

I really don't like that explanation... it makes it seem like the pressure differential is "known" to the gas inside the cylinder via some sort of acoustically-transmitted information. My initial reaction was "HUH" and my secondary reaction was "ok, I don't buy that."

After a little work on Google, I discovered that the effect really exists, but I think this link describes it better (emphasis mine): [engsoft.co.kr]

However, once the downstream pressure reaches or is less than the critical pressure, the compressible mass flow rate does not increase even though the downstream pressure is decreased further.

This specific phenomenon is called as "choked flow", and the energy difference between the choked exit and ambient conditions is dissipated by shock wave and/or turbulence.

Also, choked flow does not occur for thin-plate orifices [wikipedia.org] , which wouldn't make sense relative to the explanation as given by that prof. If the flow was really being limited by the non-propagation of information against a gas flowing at the speed of sound, the thickness of the plate shouldn't matter.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

shma (863063) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283919)

We can't create stuff that goes faster than the speed of light, but we can create stuff that goes faster than the speed of sound. And just as you can't go fast enough to come back through an event horizon, information can't propagate fast enough in the experiment to go back across the subsonic/supersonic boundary. This shows us what it looks like to be in a situation like that of a black hole.

That's exactly right. What they have done is create an acoustic event horizon. It doesn't hold all the same properties as a real black hole, but as Korn says, there is a chance that you can see Hawking Radiation and possibly BH evaporation from this experiment. There has already been a paper [arxiv.org] suggesting that you can see Hawking radiation by looking at the density correlation functions of the BEC.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

bsy_at_play (718756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282183)

heisenberg: uncertainty in energy times uncertainty in time has a lower bound. what is the energy of the phonons? given the small time that heisenberg allows the virtual phonon pairs to exist, how far can the phonons travel? without actually working out the numbers, my seat of the pants guess is that the number of virtual phonon pairs for which one member crosses the acoustic event horizon will be vanishingly small.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282587)

That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.

This isn't really a metaphor exactly. If the equations governing two systems are the same, then we expect the behavior to be the same, and we can describe them in the same terms. Phonons themselves are a good example of this: a phonon is hardly the sort of thing that you would intuitively think of as a particle, but because the equations governing phonons are the same as those governing quantum mechanical particles, physicists describe phonons as particles. Subatomic particles themselves bear very little resemblance to the 'billiard ball' particles that most people imagine. I think that it would be better to say that Hawking radiation is just an effect predicted for systems obeying certain equations, and in that sense, both the acoustic and traditional black holes exhibit completely real Hawking Radiation.

It is true that getting 'acoustic Hawking radiation' wouldn't constitute absolute proof that Black Holes do the same thing - our model may be wrong. What it will do do is provide proof that, assuming our model is correct, Hawking radiation is real, and there isn't some unanticipated effect which invalidates the theory.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (2, Interesting)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282757)

That's somewhere in between a metaphor for Hawking Radiation and the real thing.

This isn't really a metaphor exactly. If the equations governing two systems are the same, then we expect the behavior to be the same, and we can describe them in the same terms. Phonons themselves are a good example of this: a phonon is hardly the sort of thing that you would intuitively think of as a particle, but because the equations governing phonons are the same as those governing quantum mechanical particles, physicists describe phonons as particles. Subatomic particles themselves bear very little resemblance to the 'billiard ball' particles that most people imagine. I think that it would be better to say that Hawking radiation is just an effect predicted for systems obeying certain equations, and in that sense, both the acoustic and traditional black holes exhibit completely real Hawking Radiation.

It is true that getting 'acoustic Hawking radiation' wouldn't constitute absolute proof that Black Holes do the same thing - our model may be wrong. What it will do do is provide proof that, assuming our model is correct, Hawking radiation is real, and there isn't some unanticipated effect which invalidates the theory.

I take your point, and you may easily have more expertise than I do (non-specialist grad quantum mechanics classes and a couple undergrad astro classes along with some casual enthusiasm for the subject). My understanding of Hawking radiation is that the split virtual pair explanation isn't physically accurate, but that tunneling of particles through the event horizon is the more physically valid explanation.

1) I'm not aware of an analogous effect that will work for phonons. Tunneling itself is on the wrong lengthscale.

2) Since the virtual particle pair splitting explanation also satisfies the radiation equations, maybe this difference doesn't have much significance. Were someone to convince me of this, I'd fully agree with you.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

SleepingWaterBear (1152169) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283519)

1) I'm not aware of an analogous effect that will work for phonons. Tunneling itself is on the wrong lengthscale.

2) Since the virtual particle pair splitting explanation also satisfies the radiation equations, maybe this difference doesn't have much significance. Were someone to convince me of this, I'd fully agree with you.

Well, I'll admit that my knowledge of Phonons is actually fairly limited, so I'm trusting the article in it's claim that the equations governing the two systems are the same. If not then the article is being very misleading, and I'd have to change my stance! My own personal opinion about quantum mechanics though is that the equations themselves represent the fundamental thing, and the particular interpretation you place on them is just a convenience.

So both the 'split virtual pair' explanation and the tunneling explanation are really just approximations that give us something to visualize. Particles themselves don't really exist as independent physical entities in a truly meaningful sense, they're just manifestations of modes in the system's wavefunction, and so both the ideas of 'virtual pairs' and of tunneling are somewhat misleading. We can pretend that quantum mechanical particles are like billiard balls, except with special properties like the ability to randomly appear in pairs, or to tunnel through potential barriers, and that'll get us a long way, but there will be places where the analogy breaks down. From the wave function point of view, virtual particles are no stranger than nodes and anti-nodes appearing in a string when you shake it.

The real metaphor here is the idea of the particle. It's a fairly good metaphor, but the equations of quantum mechanics aren't the equations of classical mechanics, and at some point the metaphor stops being relevant.

Re:Sort of Hawking Radiation (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283023)

If you yell a lot at your black sound hole, until it cries, and "evaporates", does it create something that resembles a Disaster Area recording from 30 miles away, in an atomic bunker?

From the tone of the description (1)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281253)

From the enthusiastic tone of the description, this sounds like Nobel Prize material.

Yet, I cannot judge it well enough.

Re:From the tone of the description (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281361)

From the description, this Hawking radiation sounds like the ability to close the deal. Occasionally, a human is born too close to an event horizon, and their ability to close the deal splits into a brief virtual pair. One goes into the black hole, and the other goes flying off. But the human is left without any ability to close the deal.

Re:From the tone of the description (3, Informative)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282117)

Here, I'll fix it.

The real prize is not the acoustic black hole itself but what it might makes possible: the first observation of something analogous to Hawking radiation. The Theory of Quantum mechanics predicts that pairs of phonons with opposite momentum ought to be constantly springing in and out of existence in a BEC. Theoretically, were one of the pair to stray across the event horizon into the supersonic region, it could never escape. However, the other would be free to go on its way. This stream of phononic radiation away from an acoustic black hole would be the first observation of anything even vaguely resembling Hawking radiation. The team hasn't actually achieved any of this though. It can't be long now before they or their numerous competitors make this leap. Unless their hypothesis is totally wrong, which is entirely possible. But that doesn't sound particularly impressive, so we'll just forget about that bit...

Re:From the tone of the description (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282955)

That's because the dronons were captured in the black hole, while the excitons weren't. What you've just experienced is the first known observation of Hawkings elation.

how about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281263)

sound bomb ? sound propulsion ? just gather sound in an acoustic black hole then release it ... could be for an interesting application ( if ever B-E can get bigger )

Doppler Shift? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281317)

I think it would be interesting to see a 3D graph of the magnitude of a 'chirp' sent across the "black hole" and compare it with doppler shift equations, and then overlay that with a graph of purposed light behaviors about a black hole. Experimental proof vs mathematical?

86 says (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281331)

Let's use the cone of silence, chief!

Phonon ey? (4, Insightful)

Snowblindeye (1085701) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281387)

I knew light was quantized, but I had seriously never heard of Phonons, or that sound can be quantized as well.

Well, apparently it can: Phonon [wikipedia.org]

Re:Phonon ey? (2, Informative)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282303)

Everything is quantized if you're looking at it at a small enough scale.

Re:Phonon ey? (1)

getuid() (1305889) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282307)

"Phonos" are basically "crystal oscillations". Enter the concept of "reciprocal space": it's basically the Fourier transform of the real 3D space, and is very commonly used in solid state physics.

Now as you probably know, a clean frequency (i.e. a sinus wave) in the time domain results to a single peak in the Fourier-Transform (i.e. in the frequency domain). And similar for phonons: a clean crystal oscillation (i.e. a single-frequency sound wave propagating through a medium) in 3D space results in the equivalent of a single, localized "particle" in reciprocal space: a phonon.

Re:Phonon ey? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282735)

Yeah, it kind of ruins that whole debate about 'is light a particle or a wave', doesn't it? Even a sound wave is just a bunch of particles. Wish I had thought of that earlier.....

Not Hawking Radiation (3, Informative)

Big_Breaker (190457) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281403)

There is an analogy there in the macro physics but that doesn't mean the small scale stuff like QM will be mirrored.

You can model gravity in the orbital mechanics sense with a marble and vertical cone that tapers at 1/square(height). That doesn't mean it will do anything relativistic or quantum mechanical.

Re:Not Hawking Radiation (3, Interesting)

Manchot (847225) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282731)

No, phonons are indeed quantum mechanical. (A phonon is essentially the joint wavefunction describing many different nuclei in a solid.) The main difference that I see between this setup and a black hole is in the "vacuum" from which particles are created. In a solid, phonons are typically created by a myriad of scattering events. Two electrons could scatter off each other, an electron could scatter off a nucleus, a photon of visible light could make dozens of phonons, etc. Near a black hole, though, virtual pairs need to be created spontaneously from the vacuum. So, the upshot is that while the general mechanism is the same in both cases, I would guess that phonons in a BEC are created far more frequently than virtual pairs near a black hole.

Re:Not Hawking Radiation (1)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283001)

Bose-Einstein condensation is an exclusively quantum mechanical phenomenon; What do you mean the quantum effects may not be mirrored?

maybe we can use this to... (2, Interesting)

pha7boy (1242512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281441)

I would hope we can use it to defend our civilization from both outside and inside attack. Maybe put a few of them in orbit that would suck in the drudgery of the reality shows and entertainment-news talking heads so that no outside civilization will feel the need to demolish the planet to build a hyperspace bypass. Plus, we won't have to listen/watch this crap anymore. A world without Fox/CNN/MSNBC... wow. I can only hope.

Re:maybe we can use this to... (2, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283911)

Yes, when will humanity invent this mysterious technology that allows us to avoid reality TV and cable news? This device, known to SciFi writers as the "off switch" may forever be the stuff of fiction.

I buy it (2, Funny)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281459)

I need one of these for one of my neighbors. Does it swallow people and dogs, too? Cuz that'd be really good.

Not the first Acoustic Black Hole (4, Interesting)

GameGod0 (680382) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281501)

Black holes in a Bathtub by E. Berti (2005):
www.iop.org/EJ/article/1742-6596/8/1/013/jpconf5_8_013.pdf

The argument basically goes that when you unplug your bathtub, there's a certain point at which waves generated past the "event horizon" near the hole never escape the hole. It's an interesting read, but I was under the impression that this is basically the same thing, albeit not an effect that arises from quantum field theory.

Re:Not the first Acoustic Black Hole (1)

valinor89 (1564455) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284393)

So, every time I unplug my bathub there is a possibility to create a Black Hole? Why do we want the LHC when we have bathtubs? Are you sure the LHC isn't just a bathtub? Conspiracy teory, anyone?

this just goes to show (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281513)

You don't need morals to be intelligent, and intelligence doesn't give you morals.

I think all work that comes out of Israel should be ignored, and promising Israeli scientists should be invited to move to a non-racist Western country for them to be able to continue their work.

DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (4, Funny)

nausea_malvarma (1544887) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281517)

You'll create a BLACK HOLE that ENGULFS THE EARTH! Just like the LHC!

Re:DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (5, Funny)

Ukab the Great (87152) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281673)

Or even worse, the Earth will continue to exist and be entirely populated by mimes.

Re:DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281765)

I wish I could mod you up for that - I just can't think of a worse fate.

Re:DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282219)

Time to arm the motherless penguins with loaves of pumpernickel.

Re:DONT DO IT SCIENTISTS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28283861)

In the land of the mime, the whispering man is king.

bah (1)

grub (11606) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281581)


Motorhead could kill any wimpy acoustical black hole.

What does it sound like? (1)

Lord Lode (1290856) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281589)

It must be "The Sound".

Dudley? (1)

AdamWill (604569) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281621)

Hmm, wonder if it might be Dudley Bose? (c'mon, I can't be the only Hamilton fan around. sucky audio equipment is not the only type of Bose!)

Re:Dudley? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281989)

. . . sucky audio equipment is not the only type of Bose!

I couldn't agree more - some of the audio equipment they make is sucky but, it isn't the only type. The other type they make is excellent quality audio equipment, which is the majority of their product line.

Yeah, Bose may not be the best, but they're still better than most so, stop acting like a fucking pretentious poser.

btw - what is Didley Bose?

Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (2, Interesting)

jeffb (2.718) (1189693) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281711)

This could be even better than the "bass-seeking missile" that I've wanted to deploy for years.

New shield to be deployed soon... (1)

Salamalecs (1540135) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281897)

... against phonon torpedoes ?

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28282049)

Yes, everybody knows a black hole generator is a terrifying weapon. It does take its space from the heavy cruiser, though. I personally prefer tachyon beams and the like myself, lots of them. The Death Ray, however, it's just a waste of space.

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28282121)

I'd be more interested in using it as a fish finder. *BOOM* the bass!

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (1)

spydum (828400) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282181)

I tried to process this statement a few times trying to comprehend why you were shooting fish with missles. Guess I'll learn to read the subject..

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282509)

I think the RIAA might be very interested in this, as they could finally prevent everyone from ever hearing music again.

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (2, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282693)

I'm bassuming there's an unintended 'B' in that sentence..

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (1)

T Murphy (1054674) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282753)

In the meantime you can do what I do. When an overly loud car pulls up next to you, blast the news at them.

Re:Weaponize it and use it against car stereos. (1)

MetalPhalanx (1044938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283525)

My father (who happens to be almost deaf) has a unique approach to this that has seen good results through the years... He keeps a couple of CDs of music with him that are frankly just awful. When someone is being obnoxious with their music, he switches away from whatever he was normally listening to, takes his hearing aids out, selects the song(s) he think will cause the recipient the most auditory distress, and then cranks his music until his seat rattles... leaving it turned up until they're out of hearing range or they take the hint and lower their volume.

I wish I could contact him, he's drawn up a very amusing correlation between the type of music that the intended recipient is listening to and the music that will cause them the most distress. Oddly enough, it's not always the most diametrically opposed style that is the worst, sometimes it's a very similar style that is just badly done. Last I checked, his list included several songs from the backstreet boys, aqua, a couple of even shittier dance tracks, and several bad death metal bands (he takes the CDs I get from local metal shows and rips the worst sounding ones). There are others but I can't remember them.

Acoustic Black Hole? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281793)

Doesn't this describe every song that James Taylor has published?

I had an acoustic black hole before... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281827)

... back in the 90s, but then the local top40 station started playing boy bands nonstop and my black hole was, itself, pulled into the resulting immense vacuum.

"First Acoustic Black Hole Created" Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281871)

I thought it was Nirvana Unplugged.

I dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28281879)

The more i see and read off these quantum and string Theories the more i think Bullshit

Re:I dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28283071)

Does your mommy know you're using her computer without asking again, child?

Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (5, Funny)

revjtanton (1179893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281901)

"Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
Nigel Tufnel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
Marty DiBergi: I don't know.
Nigel Tufnel: Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
Marty DiBergi: Put it up to eleven.
Nigel Tufnel: Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
Marty DiBergi: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
Nigel Tufnel: [pause] These go to eleven."
"Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black. "

Re:Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (1)

PGOER (1333025) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282837)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't BEC's near abosolute zero superfluids? These consist of small amounts of molecules super cooled with lazers and magnetic traps? How do you measure the sound comming off of them, you need a lazer just to see them? What if we got a really big speaker and an amp that goes to eleven, I'm sure we could impart enough energy to desroy the black hole.

Re:Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (1)

revjtanton (1179893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282937)

hahahaha! YES!

Re:Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (1)

PGOER (1333025) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283091)

I actually replaced the volume pot in my Fender amp, it now turns approximately 2 points past 10, so it now goes to 12. "Me: Nigel, your amp that goes to eleven, wasn't loud enough to destroy the acoustic black hole, so we had to build one that went to 12, exactly one louder than eleven."

Re:Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (2, Funny)

revjtanton (1179893) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283257)

You sir are a genius! If these "scientists" try and display this one day to the public or for a nobel prize panel you should show up with the power of rock and destroy their evil!

Re:Is it me or does this story scream Spinal Tap? (2, Funny)

PGOER (1333025) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283591)

Now, this is sounding like Yahoo Serious - Young Einstien (real Stupid Funny movie) Were talking splittling beer atoms to power the worlds first electric guitar, and lets not forget the oversized speaker from Back to the Future. Let me tell you there is NO WAY that an accoustic black hole can withstand a 8' speaker, fed from an amp that goes to eleven, and powered by beer atom fission! We're talking, fucking, muscle.

Great (4, Funny)

segfault7375 (135849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28281929)

Sweet, now I just have to trick my wife into standing in it.. ah peace

Finally ... it's Cone of silence! (1)

Dragged Down by the (1004490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282063)

Sorry about that, Chief.

Acoustic black hole... (2, Funny)

soconn (1466967) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282585)

Isn't that the name of the new Britney Spears album?

First Acoustic Black Hole Created (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28282589)

This many comments no mention of goatse?

Phonon != Photon! (2, Insightful)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282885)

How do you infer from the effects of phonons, that the same happens to photons? If they had the same effects, this would mean that luminiferous aether would exist. Which as far as we know, is not true, and replaced by the theory of relativity. Or would it be the effect of a quantized space-time? And would those quantums then be some kind of particles?

Or is the analogy just wrong, except for some subsets? ^^

Not so fast... (3, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 5 years ago | (#28282947)

The first Acoustic Black Hole [mtv.com] was actually created back in 1981.

Black hole? (1)

clone53421 (1310749) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283041)

If it traps sound instead of light, shouldn't it be called a silent hole instead?

This gives me an idea! (1)

caywen (942955) | more than 5 years ago | (#28283369)

Ooh, this gives me a great idea on how to attack the Vatican! Much simpler than stealing antimatter from the LHC.

silence is golden (1)

flahwho (1243110) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284095)

now if i could only put my wife, kids and boss in it

Pardon my ignorance, but... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284233)

WTF is a Phonon?

Re:Pardon my ignorance, but... (1)

vonhammer (992352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28284405)

This gives you the best explanation: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=phonon [lmgtfy.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>