Tree in forest.

Does quantum mechanics prove that if a tree falls in a forest, and no one is there, it does not make a noise?

The falling tree creates sound.

The lack of a mechanism to detect sound is what it is.

Quantum mechanics would probably explain this.

Does quantum mechanics not say that the tree falls without making a sound and making a sound at the same time, and we disrupt it by detecting it?

You are correct, it does not say that.

And what is it? Everything is what it is. Tautology is a type of sophistry.

If you're trying to sound intelligent, you're doing it wrong.

Hi DrSpy. I know what you're talking about. You've replace Schrödinger's cat with a tree in the forest.

Quantum mechanics says quantum events are affected by our observation of them, but a tree falling in the forest and making a sound is a whole series of events, not a single quantum event.

You had the basic idea, you just misapplied it. Quantum effects are very interesting to me because they threaten to nullify the materialist's claim that nothing but matter and energy exist, and blows the skeptics who scoff at miracles right out of the water.

It's sad that so few understand the concepts that it usually pointless to try to discuss them here.

I like your avatar. Do you know its from spy vs spy? I loved that magazine.

Yes, I knew this was Spy v Spy.  I remember some video games on the C64 with them I think.

You. are correct I am replacing  Schrodginers cat with the tree.  Another way to look at it is by using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  Because we detected noise, the tree can no longer be in its true position of no noise.

I thought it was kinda funny.    It is a tough crowd here.

I dont think so

It was.

Things happen as they do.

No miracles required.

The human desires, creates and desires miracles.

And so the tree falls and does and doesn't make a sound, which is what I inferred (given the definition of the word sound).

And ethang5 implicates the big one.....Typical.

And Schrodinger's cat is human over-think.....Typical

But quantum mechanics says that the tree both makes a sound and does not make a sound at the same time.  And only by adding the measuring device does it actually make a sound.

Which is exactly what I stated. ...And so we agree on that aspect of things.

Though my argument was, that quantum mechanics is an internal data construct/hypothesis that attempts to explain actuality.

So, rather than as you suggested, maybe it is the falling tree that substantiates quantum mechanics.

Yeah, but... It doesn't actually say that.

No, quantum mechanics does not prove there is no sound because "sound" is not only the phenomenon of being heard, but also the phenomenon of air being disturbed by compaction and rarefaction, whether or not an ear is present to sense these phenomena. The effect would be felt by sensitive, non-hearing tissue of plants as readily as they would be affected by silent wind. The effect has measurable consequence, good and bad, depending on frequency and modulation, to tissue growth and development. 

Your argument has many assumptions, and they are not part of the quantum theory I am talking about.

My answer is that there is no answer.  If the tree is truly not being observed, then the tree could theoretically be in a state of quantum superposition. 

A quantum superposition means the tree is standing and falling at the same time, which means it could be making sound and not making sound at the same time, and even still the tree exists and does not exist at the same time.

It is a theory that Einstein could not reconcile.  "God does not play dice with the universe"

Is there any real point in trying to reconcile an abstract concept, other than the exercise of trying to reconcile an abstract concept that is unreconcilable.

And a god can do anything imaginable.

And the likelihood of a tree and it's function is as likely as the observer and it's function.

And we assume that the qualities of the universe are what they are, whether or not we are able to know what they are.

And so we assume that we do in fact understand the physics of sound and also the difference between the standing tree and the fallen tree.

While there currently isn't a quantum solution for gravity, we could turn to classic physics; Newtons Laws if we want to find out how much force was placed upon the tree and the ground. From the energy released from the impact, quantum solutions could tell us what happens at the level. To your question about noise, the impact would created phonons that would travel through the ground and the atmosphere which would definitely produce noise.

But quantum mechanics does not see the tree in a state of conventional matter, therefore you cant have F=MA, therefore Newtonian does not apply.

The Standard Model describes all the forces (except gravity), known particles and how they interact. This would indeed be the states of matter of everything we know in the universe so far. If this was what you're looking for, then it would provide the answers if we were to break down the tree into its known substances and go from there. The noise part of the equation would include the interaction of phonons.

It depends on if you define sound as a vibration in the air or requiring someone to hear it.

Yep.

The ambiguity of definition is sometimes misleading.

Perhaps noise would be better, though even this is not clear cut, as technically certain noise is not detectable by the human auditory system.

Good vibrations as someone once sang.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

No. A tree is not a quantum entity, and so the laws of quantum physics and mechanics doesn’t apply at the scale of a tree.

I mean, using video game knowledge, the tree is loaded, but it is not visible to you. The world is basically an open-world game, with one exception that nothing is unloaded ever. 

However, if a tree falls in a video game, it creates no sound if no one detects it. In fact, you don't know if it even falls at all because it isn't loaded at all. 

Maybe the truth is really subjective, but from what we know, the tree still makes a sound because it never unloads, and it is just no one to hear it. If a person committed a crime so sneaky that no one knew he did it ever, the truth is still that he is guilty. From what I know now, truth is objective. 

I mean, the world could be a simulation, after all, consider computers could easily generate a world-scale environment in the future. God to us could be the same as Us to our characters in Sims 4. 

It depends on what theory you follow.

"Macroscopic decoherence—also known as “many-worlds”—is the idea that the known quantum laws that govern microscopic events simply govern at all levels without alteration."

When you say "known quantum law", what do you mean specifically?

I'm no expert, so no clear idea, but essentially many-worlds suggests that decoherence and the uncertainty principle aren't just a quantum level thing but scale all the way up, allowing for multiple things to be happening at once, similar to the Schrodinger's Cat, though Schrodinger originally created the thought experiment to represent quantum particles by themselves, not creating an actual cat as a "quantum entity," as you put it.

I still maintain, quantum wampum, or not, compaction and rarefaction of air particles do exhibit the phenomenon of "noise."

noise aka frequencies of vibration whether as air molecules, water molecules,

atoms, electrons, quarks, neutrinos etc

...' what we have is, moderations/modification of angle { V } and frequency { /\/\/\/\/\/ }'... parphrasing Bucky Fuller with my additions

.."what we have is, interfering and non-interfering patterns, operating in pure principle"...B Fuller

ask not, what can Universe do for you, rather, what can you do for Universe....addendum changes to John F Kennedy comments