Singing arias on supersonic trains - a conundrum.

While on an airplane earlier today, a friend of mine and I got talking about air travel vs. train travel, the new super fast trains like the the Maglev, advantages and disadvantages of supersonic flight, and the possibility of someday making a supersonic train to possibly compete with airliners. During the course of this conversation my friend presented me with a question, a kind of a puzzle, that left me somewhat confused. It’s a bit complicated, but try to keep up, and never mind any practicalities involved in actually building such a train. Here’s the deal:

Consider the following: you are a budding young tenor on a hypothetical futuristic supersonic Japanese train, on your way to take part in a performance of, say, Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro” somewhere in Japan. To be precise, you are on an open platform at the rearmost carriage of the train, exposed to the open air. The train speeds up and breaches the sound barrier. While moving along supersonically, you decide to spend your time polishing your singing skills, and break into a rendition of the aria “Non piu andrai”. The sound thus produced travels away from the train in all directions at, obviously, the speed of sound, about 340 m/s. At the same time, the train moves along at a supersonic speed, let’s say at twice the speed of sound, outrunning the sound waves. Now, suddenly the train slows back down to subsonic speed again, to pull into a station. The sound waves from your performance will then catch up with you, and you will get to hear yourself sing. The thing is, and here is the conundrum, will you then hear the aria backwards?

You might think “why would you?”, but here’s the tricky part. Picture the point where you sing the word “non”. The sound starts moving along at the speed of sound, but at the same time you are moving twice as fast. At a point a little bit further down the line you sing the word “piu”, and a bit further again you sing the word “andrai”. When the train slows down, the sound waves that are closest to you, and that will catch up with you first, are from the last bit of the aria that you sang. The next waves will be from an earlier part, etc. Now, in this simplified model, the sound of the aria should come back to you as first “andrai”, then “piu”, then “non” - turning “non piu andrai” into “andrai piu non”.

Am I missing something here, or is this really a way to reverse Mozart’s aria, getting to hear yourself sing it backwards, and possibly get to find out if the great man put some hidden satanist messages in there?

“Sings on a train” I’d see that movie.

Love the question!

I can’t fault the logic - I think you’re right, the sound catching up with you would arrive time-reversed. I’m not sure how well the sound quality would survive the process!

Take a peek at the animation here. Look carefully, and you can see that if you were stationary as the train passed you, after the sonic boom passes, the first sound emitted reaches you last, and the last sound reaches you first:

http://members.aol.com/nicholashl/waves/supersonic.html
In terms of practicalities, you can’t sing (or even breathe) on an open-air carriage of a supersonic train, so your guy would have to be inside, piping the sound out through a speaker. Say your speaker hooks up to a big backward-pointing cone at the back of the train, so the supersonic slipstream flows over the vibrating cone and the sound waves enter it. Might be possible, but don’t quote me on that.

I’d thought that the point of the sonic boom was that the sound all reached the hearer pretty much at once. That is, if you took all of the rumble you hear when a regular jet flies over and put it all at once, that’s a sonic boom. Am I wrong?

If you were to out run the sound and then slow down to let it catch up to you then you would hear it forward. If you sang sub-sonically, then sped up to supersonic to catch it, you would hear it in reverse. Or am I missing something?

Leaving aside all the pesky little practical considerations (like that the air your going through would probably rip the tenor’s head off), the OP is correct: You would hear the aria backwards, and probably at a different speed. If you sang at rest and then sped to catch up with the sound, as DanBlather proposes, it would also be reversed.

Aside from the irresistable nitpick that the aria you mentioned is sung by a bass, and not a tenor, :stuck_out_tongue: my only contribution to the topic at hand is to wonder whether or not the sound would dissipate so thoroughly because of dispersion before the train slowed down that you would actually hear nothing at all?

The sound would have to travel the same distance that the train/plane did in order for it to catch up after the deceleration of the plane/train - which would probably be many miles. It would take an extraordinary volume of sound to travel that distance, and even then it would be distorted.

I love the idea, though… :cool:

There’s another problem. “Non piu andrai” is not a tenor aria. :smiley:

Blast. :smack: And from **Figaro ** himself! Talk about hearing it straight from the horse’s mouth! Now, that was a very silly mistake indeed on my part. Well, I knew there had to be a fatal flaw somewhere in the argument… :wink:

So what happens if you are on a treadmill that is spinning at the speed of sound?

I think that’s right too. And if the train was doing exactly Mach 2, I think you’d hear it at the same speed and same pitch, only reversed.

I never thought about this, but this means it’s possible to make a missile that overtakes the sound and then points a parabolic microphone back towards the source, so it can listen to what happened a few minutes ago. Maybe a gigantic array of microphones halfway around the world can listen to what happened the day before…

I think I’ll nitpick my own OP. Any hidden satanic messages would probably have to be blamed on the librettist, Lorenzo da Ponte.

Those Italian librettists… a shady bunch if ever there was one.

Aw…Lorenzo ran a grocery store in Philadelphia and taught at Columbia University…how bad can he be!

Of course…there were reasons why he left Italy in the first place…:wink:

I’m probably missing something myself, but I don’t think the sound would travel away in all directions at the speed of sound. It was produced by the tenor, who is himself traveling at Mach 2. Therefore:

The sound would travel forward down the track at Mach 3 (Mach 2 plus the speed of the sound).

The sound would travel aft, back down the track at the speed of sound (Mach 2 minus the speed of sound).

The sound would travel outward to the left and right of the train at speeds I’m not smart enough to figure out.

So I don’t see how you’d ever catch the sound forward-bound, and you’d have to both slow down and reverse VERY quickly to catch the aft sound.

Wouldn’t you?

I don’t think this works.

Sound travels as a wave in some medium (in this case, air). It doesn’t travel faster because it’s emitted from something that’s in motion. For the same reason, the waves that originate from a fast-moving boat travel at much the same speed as those from a slow or stopped boat.

It is true that the frequency of a sound is altered by motion - that’s the Doppler effect.

I don’t understand why this is the case. Why would sound be different from an arrow shot from a moving object?

Because nothing is being shot. As Xema points out sound is a propagated wave.

Sound works because your vocal chords vibrate and literally flick the air molecules away from them. Each air molecule that they flick away only moves until it strikes another air molecule and pushes it away at the same speed, and that molecule then goes on to hit another molecule and so forth. The sound itself is that compression wave in the air molecules.

None of the air molecules that are moved by the vocal chords directly ever even leave your mouth much less leave the carriage of the train. Instead they pass ont heir momentum in a wave to other air molecules, and they pass that on at the speed of sound. So it’s not analogous at all to an arrow being shot from the train.

A more apt analogy would be having a line of people beside the railway line, with each person representing an air molecule. As you go past in the train you tap the shoulder of a person and they then tap the shoulder of the person beside them and so forth. Even though you tapped their shoulder at the speed of sound (and probably broke it and your hand) the rate at which that tap is then propagated is entirely unrelated to your speed. The chain of taps won’t move any faster than if your had been standing still when you initiated it.

You’re right and you’re wrong!

Look at the animation of a supersonic object again. The surface that maps the coincidence of the emitted sound is a cone with its apex at the object. This cone is the supersonic shock front, and as it passes an observer, they hear the sonic boom. It is accurate to regard the boom as the simultaneous arrival of sound generated over an interval of time (and along a line in space), but there is non-simultaneous sound that arrives after it.

Behind the shock front there is still emitted sound, some of it still travelling in the same direction as the moving object. And if you’re reasonably close to the object, the sound arrives time-reversed.

Blake’s covered this pretty well, but to elaborate: sound is a travelling disturbance in a medium, not a moving object. If I have a long steel rail in a yard and hit one end with a hammer while you’re listening at the other end, the sound travels along the steel, but none of the steel at my end travels to your end. And if I’m travelling in a car beside the rail and hit it with the hammer as I go by, the speed of the car isn’t added to the speed of the sound in the rail.

And then instead of hearing “non piu andrai,” you’d hear “All hail lord Satan!”

Of course your voice would have to go through an expansion wave as it left the supersonic region and reentered the area of subsonic air. This would likely distort the sound beyond recognizability.