posted on May, 31 2013 @ 12:10 PM
Originally posted by vind21
I may have been mislead into thinking that the theory was some how related to John Stuart Reid directly. A simple google search for SPEEC of SPEEC
theory does not turn up much it is possibly defunct
I dunno, I don't see any references to it other than Reid, so it sounds like one of those things he espoused but couldn't convince anyone of.
eta: At any rate, thinking about it, I think it's one of those things that are probably sort of correct on the surface but turns out to be a
misconception on second glance. It's certainly the wrong terminology to say that EM is a component
of sound, it would be more accurate to say
that EM radiation variations are a side-effect. The EM you'd get wouldn't be associated with the sound wave, it is a side effect of the compression
and rarefaction of the medium. In the compression phase, the medium is very VERY slightly warmer, in the rarefaction phase, very VERY slightly cooler.
To the point I'm not sure you could measure it. As any material over absolute zero emits IR, and the wavelength is associated with the temperature of
the material, the peaks and troughs (if you will) of the sound wave will cause a probably undetectably slight blurring of the IR spectrum being
emitted by the medium.
By the same token, all the surfaces that the sound hits that aren't totally elastic will also heat undetectably. This would be the same, though, if I
hit them with a rock. Were I to toss a rock at a brick wall, the air in front of the rock will compress and heat in the same manner, and to about the
same degree. And like Reid's supposition states, yes, the undetectably slight warming of the air in front of the rock will alter the EM background
thermal emissions of that air. Also undetectably. That doesn't mean that EM is a component of rock pitching.
edit on 31-5-2013 by Bedlam
because: (no reason given)