RF vs. audio of the same frequency

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;







up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












From an article by an engineer at Cisco Systems:




An RF signal can have the same frequency as a sound wave, and most people can hear a 5 kHz audio tone. No one can hear a 5 kHz RF signal.




Why not?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
    – SamGibson
    14 hours ago










  • Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
    – Ben S
    4 hours ago
















up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












From an article by an engineer at Cisco Systems:




An RF signal can have the same frequency as a sound wave, and most people can hear a 5 kHz audio tone. No one can hear a 5 kHz RF signal.




Why not?










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
    – SamGibson
    14 hours ago










  • Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
    – Ben S
    4 hours ago












up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1






1





From an article by an engineer at Cisco Systems:




An RF signal can have the same frequency as a sound wave, and most people can hear a 5 kHz audio tone. No one can hear a 5 kHz RF signal.




Why not?










share|improve this question















From an article by an engineer at Cisco Systems:




An RF signal can have the same frequency as a sound wave, and most people can hear a 5 kHz audio tone. No one can hear a 5 kHz RF signal.




Why not?







rf






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 27 secs ago









SamGibson

10k41435




10k41435










asked 17 hours ago









Ben S

563




563







  • 1




    Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
    – SamGibson
    14 hours ago










  • Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
    – Ben S
    4 hours ago












  • 1




    Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
    – SamGibson
    14 hours ago










  • Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
    – Ben S
    4 hours ago







1




1




Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
– SamGibson
14 hours ago




Hi, For readers who may want to see more of the context of that quotation, can you edit the question and add a link to the original source, please? I found it in a couple of places, and I don't want to add a different source to yours. Thanks :-)
– SamGibson
14 hours ago












Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
– Ben S
4 hours ago




Yes - here is the original pdf written by Ron Hranac - scte.org/TechnicalColumns/…
– Ben S
4 hours ago










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
17
down vote













The audio tone is compression waves traveling through air that your ears can pick up. The RF signal is waves in the electromagnetic field that you ears have no way of picking up.






share|improve this answer
















  • 2




    Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
    – amI
    15 hours ago

















up vote
8
down vote













RF signals are electromagnetic (EM) waves. We do not have any sensors for 5 kHz EM waves.



We do have EM sensors though, our eyes. They can sense EM waves from $4×10^14$ Hz (red light) to $8×10^14$ Hz (violet light). If strong enough we can also feel infrared radiation as heat.



We can also feel (as heat) powerful EM radiation at lower frequencies, but if you feel that then the field is dangerously strong and you should step out of that (radar) beam.






share|improve this answer






















  • I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
    – Ben S
    3 hours ago


















up vote
5
down vote













Our body is a dielectric (insulator) with salts (conductive ions) so, although we cannot detect EM waves, the absorption of electric fields is generally proportional to the frequency.



Conversely, electric fields can be tolerated with increased levels as the frequency is reduced.



Example bass woofer audio at 60 Hz with 100 mV into the speaker coil is loud enough to be clearly heard and 100 Vpp might rattle something on the walls.



While a 100 V/m 50 or 60 Hz electric field does nothing to us as not only are we tiny compared to the wavelength in xx km the impedance of our 100 pF fingertip is about 50 MΩ, but the salt and an arc can reduce a wire contact to 50 kΩ easily.



You can easily detect 50~100 Vpp just by touching a 10:1 scope probe without touching the earth ground, which then shunts the electric field to ground.



This means we can conduct it easily, but not absorb it as a high impedance electric field. We are low impedance as the antenna impedance of our boy is proportional to the super long EM wavelength at the speed of light.



Sound pressures on the other hand in the air are pressure waves and are easily detected by the cilia hairs in our ears, which have progressive different lengths acting as resonators. Below 20 Hz we generally feel the vibrations more than hear them.



Both RF impedances then reduces with increasing surface area into capacitors below antenna wavelengths, but in effect, we act as a weak coupling capacitor to low frequency so there is no energy absorption. It just passed through us. At higher radio and TV frequency at the sub millivolt signal levels we can act as an antenna without the sensation except for possibly better reception. However our energy SAR absorption acceptable rate is a function of frequency and watts/cm3 for a given volume of flesh with a certain "skin depth".



Anecdotal



Back in the 1970s our company designed and made 50 W and 100 W VHF and UHF transmitters. Even with the lid open for fine-tuning, and some low stray leakage, the tech's eyes would get bloodshot after a day's work on the production line. So the lid was redesigned with a tuning hole for a plastic screwdriver.



We had all the US military handbooks in our library for aerospace design, so after graduation in the late 1970s, this is how I first learned about human susceptibility to RF spectrum levels.



My first design project there as a young graduate was for a five-channel Doppler tracking Rx using US Navy transmitters around the western hemisphere with a Tx power about 1 megawatt suitable for 100 baud submarine communication all using carriers synchronized like GPS using nuclear clocks (Cesium). All I used was a 2 m (polar bear proof) whip antenna in the Beaufort Sea on an ice flow to track weather and ice movement in the 1970s.






share|improve this answer





























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    This is an interesting question because I used to wonder the same thing (no, I'm saying it's an interesting question because of my former curiosity).



    You're confusing electromagnetic radiation (something radio produces) with pressure waves (something sound produces). Our ears cannot adjust to electromagnetic waves and they are certain not sensitive to changes in electromagnetic waves.



    Another way to look at it is that electromagnetic waves don't have nearly enough force to cause the ear drum to vibrate... whereas sound waves do.



    If you want to get on a very quantum level about this, think about how strong gluons are.






    share|improve this answer






















      Your Answer




      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("schematics", function ()
      StackExchange.schematics.init();
      );
      , "cicuitlab");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "135"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );













       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f396141%2frf-vs-audio-of-the-same-frequency%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes








      4 Answers
      4






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      17
      down vote













      The audio tone is compression waves traveling through air that your ears can pick up. The RF signal is waves in the electromagnetic field that you ears have no way of picking up.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 2




        Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
        – amI
        15 hours ago














      up vote
      17
      down vote













      The audio tone is compression waves traveling through air that your ears can pick up. The RF signal is waves in the electromagnetic field that you ears have no way of picking up.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 2




        Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
        – amI
        15 hours ago












      up vote
      17
      down vote










      up vote
      17
      down vote









      The audio tone is compression waves traveling through air that your ears can pick up. The RF signal is waves in the electromagnetic field that you ears have no way of picking up.






      share|improve this answer












      The audio tone is compression waves traveling through air that your ears can pick up. The RF signal is waves in the electromagnetic field that you ears have no way of picking up.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 17 hours ago









      evildemonic

      935417




      935417







      • 2




        Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
        – amI
        15 hours ago












      • 2




        Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
        – amI
        15 hours ago







      2




      2




      Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
      – amI
      15 hours ago




      Powerful ELF-EMF might rattle your fillings.
      – amI
      15 hours ago












      up vote
      8
      down vote













      RF signals are electromagnetic (EM) waves. We do not have any sensors for 5 kHz EM waves.



      We do have EM sensors though, our eyes. They can sense EM waves from $4×10^14$ Hz (red light) to $8×10^14$ Hz (violet light). If strong enough we can also feel infrared radiation as heat.



      We can also feel (as heat) powerful EM radiation at lower frequencies, but if you feel that then the field is dangerously strong and you should step out of that (radar) beam.






      share|improve this answer






















      • I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
        – Ben S
        3 hours ago















      up vote
      8
      down vote













      RF signals are electromagnetic (EM) waves. We do not have any sensors for 5 kHz EM waves.



      We do have EM sensors though, our eyes. They can sense EM waves from $4×10^14$ Hz (red light) to $8×10^14$ Hz (violet light). If strong enough we can also feel infrared radiation as heat.



      We can also feel (as heat) powerful EM radiation at lower frequencies, but if you feel that then the field is dangerously strong and you should step out of that (radar) beam.






      share|improve this answer






















      • I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
        – Ben S
        3 hours ago













      up vote
      8
      down vote










      up vote
      8
      down vote









      RF signals are electromagnetic (EM) waves. We do not have any sensors for 5 kHz EM waves.



      We do have EM sensors though, our eyes. They can sense EM waves from $4×10^14$ Hz (red light) to $8×10^14$ Hz (violet light). If strong enough we can also feel infrared radiation as heat.



      We can also feel (as heat) powerful EM radiation at lower frequencies, but if you feel that then the field is dangerously strong and you should step out of that (radar) beam.






      share|improve this answer














      RF signals are electromagnetic (EM) waves. We do not have any sensors for 5 kHz EM waves.



      We do have EM sensors though, our eyes. They can sense EM waves from $4×10^14$ Hz (red light) to $8×10^14$ Hz (violet light). If strong enough we can also feel infrared radiation as heat.



      We can also feel (as heat) powerful EM radiation at lower frequencies, but if you feel that then the field is dangerously strong and you should step out of that (radar) beam.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 23 mins ago









      Peter Mortensen

      1,56231422




      1,56231422










      answered 16 hours ago









      Bimpelrekkie

      42.2k23790




      42.2k23790











      • I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
        – Ben S
        3 hours ago

















      • I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
        – Ben S
        3 hours ago
















      I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
      – Ben S
      3 hours ago





      I think this reminder that we can sense EM with our eyes, helped clarify it for me. Also, that RF can be sensed by us as heat - when testing RF circuits at work we must take care not to make contact or we can be burned by the RF.
      – Ben S
      3 hours ago











      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Our body is a dielectric (insulator) with salts (conductive ions) so, although we cannot detect EM waves, the absorption of electric fields is generally proportional to the frequency.



      Conversely, electric fields can be tolerated with increased levels as the frequency is reduced.



      Example bass woofer audio at 60 Hz with 100 mV into the speaker coil is loud enough to be clearly heard and 100 Vpp might rattle something on the walls.



      While a 100 V/m 50 or 60 Hz electric field does nothing to us as not only are we tiny compared to the wavelength in xx km the impedance of our 100 pF fingertip is about 50 MΩ, but the salt and an arc can reduce a wire contact to 50 kΩ easily.



      You can easily detect 50~100 Vpp just by touching a 10:1 scope probe without touching the earth ground, which then shunts the electric field to ground.



      This means we can conduct it easily, but not absorb it as a high impedance electric field. We are low impedance as the antenna impedance of our boy is proportional to the super long EM wavelength at the speed of light.



      Sound pressures on the other hand in the air are pressure waves and are easily detected by the cilia hairs in our ears, which have progressive different lengths acting as resonators. Below 20 Hz we generally feel the vibrations more than hear them.



      Both RF impedances then reduces with increasing surface area into capacitors below antenna wavelengths, but in effect, we act as a weak coupling capacitor to low frequency so there is no energy absorption. It just passed through us. At higher radio and TV frequency at the sub millivolt signal levels we can act as an antenna without the sensation except for possibly better reception. However our energy SAR absorption acceptable rate is a function of frequency and watts/cm3 for a given volume of flesh with a certain "skin depth".



      Anecdotal



      Back in the 1970s our company designed and made 50 W and 100 W VHF and UHF transmitters. Even with the lid open for fine-tuning, and some low stray leakage, the tech's eyes would get bloodshot after a day's work on the production line. So the lid was redesigned with a tuning hole for a plastic screwdriver.



      We had all the US military handbooks in our library for aerospace design, so after graduation in the late 1970s, this is how I first learned about human susceptibility to RF spectrum levels.



      My first design project there as a young graduate was for a five-channel Doppler tracking Rx using US Navy transmitters around the western hemisphere with a Tx power about 1 megawatt suitable for 100 baud submarine communication all using carriers synchronized like GPS using nuclear clocks (Cesium). All I used was a 2 m (polar bear proof) whip antenna in the Beaufort Sea on an ice flow to track weather and ice movement in the 1970s.






      share|improve this answer


























        up vote
        5
        down vote













        Our body is a dielectric (insulator) with salts (conductive ions) so, although we cannot detect EM waves, the absorption of electric fields is generally proportional to the frequency.



        Conversely, electric fields can be tolerated with increased levels as the frequency is reduced.



        Example bass woofer audio at 60 Hz with 100 mV into the speaker coil is loud enough to be clearly heard and 100 Vpp might rattle something on the walls.



        While a 100 V/m 50 or 60 Hz electric field does nothing to us as not only are we tiny compared to the wavelength in xx km the impedance of our 100 pF fingertip is about 50 MΩ, but the salt and an arc can reduce a wire contact to 50 kΩ easily.



        You can easily detect 50~100 Vpp just by touching a 10:1 scope probe without touching the earth ground, which then shunts the electric field to ground.



        This means we can conduct it easily, but not absorb it as a high impedance electric field. We are low impedance as the antenna impedance of our boy is proportional to the super long EM wavelength at the speed of light.



        Sound pressures on the other hand in the air are pressure waves and are easily detected by the cilia hairs in our ears, which have progressive different lengths acting as resonators. Below 20 Hz we generally feel the vibrations more than hear them.



        Both RF impedances then reduces with increasing surface area into capacitors below antenna wavelengths, but in effect, we act as a weak coupling capacitor to low frequency so there is no energy absorption. It just passed through us. At higher radio and TV frequency at the sub millivolt signal levels we can act as an antenna without the sensation except for possibly better reception. However our energy SAR absorption acceptable rate is a function of frequency and watts/cm3 for a given volume of flesh with a certain "skin depth".



        Anecdotal



        Back in the 1970s our company designed and made 50 W and 100 W VHF and UHF transmitters. Even with the lid open for fine-tuning, and some low stray leakage, the tech's eyes would get bloodshot after a day's work on the production line. So the lid was redesigned with a tuning hole for a plastic screwdriver.



        We had all the US military handbooks in our library for aerospace design, so after graduation in the late 1970s, this is how I first learned about human susceptibility to RF spectrum levels.



        My first design project there as a young graduate was for a five-channel Doppler tracking Rx using US Navy transmitters around the western hemisphere with a Tx power about 1 megawatt suitable for 100 baud submarine communication all using carriers synchronized like GPS using nuclear clocks (Cesium). All I used was a 2 m (polar bear proof) whip antenna in the Beaufort Sea on an ice flow to track weather and ice movement in the 1970s.






        share|improve this answer
























          up vote
          5
          down vote










          up vote
          5
          down vote









          Our body is a dielectric (insulator) with salts (conductive ions) so, although we cannot detect EM waves, the absorption of electric fields is generally proportional to the frequency.



          Conversely, electric fields can be tolerated with increased levels as the frequency is reduced.



          Example bass woofer audio at 60 Hz with 100 mV into the speaker coil is loud enough to be clearly heard and 100 Vpp might rattle something on the walls.



          While a 100 V/m 50 or 60 Hz electric field does nothing to us as not only are we tiny compared to the wavelength in xx km the impedance of our 100 pF fingertip is about 50 MΩ, but the salt and an arc can reduce a wire contact to 50 kΩ easily.



          You can easily detect 50~100 Vpp just by touching a 10:1 scope probe without touching the earth ground, which then shunts the electric field to ground.



          This means we can conduct it easily, but not absorb it as a high impedance electric field. We are low impedance as the antenna impedance of our boy is proportional to the super long EM wavelength at the speed of light.



          Sound pressures on the other hand in the air are pressure waves and are easily detected by the cilia hairs in our ears, which have progressive different lengths acting as resonators. Below 20 Hz we generally feel the vibrations more than hear them.



          Both RF impedances then reduces with increasing surface area into capacitors below antenna wavelengths, but in effect, we act as a weak coupling capacitor to low frequency so there is no energy absorption. It just passed through us. At higher radio and TV frequency at the sub millivolt signal levels we can act as an antenna without the sensation except for possibly better reception. However our energy SAR absorption acceptable rate is a function of frequency and watts/cm3 for a given volume of flesh with a certain "skin depth".



          Anecdotal



          Back in the 1970s our company designed and made 50 W and 100 W VHF and UHF transmitters. Even with the lid open for fine-tuning, and some low stray leakage, the tech's eyes would get bloodshot after a day's work on the production line. So the lid was redesigned with a tuning hole for a plastic screwdriver.



          We had all the US military handbooks in our library for aerospace design, so after graduation in the late 1970s, this is how I first learned about human susceptibility to RF spectrum levels.



          My first design project there as a young graduate was for a five-channel Doppler tracking Rx using US Navy transmitters around the western hemisphere with a Tx power about 1 megawatt suitable for 100 baud submarine communication all using carriers synchronized like GPS using nuclear clocks (Cesium). All I used was a 2 m (polar bear proof) whip antenna in the Beaufort Sea on an ice flow to track weather and ice movement in the 1970s.






          share|improve this answer














          Our body is a dielectric (insulator) with salts (conductive ions) so, although we cannot detect EM waves, the absorption of electric fields is generally proportional to the frequency.



          Conversely, electric fields can be tolerated with increased levels as the frequency is reduced.



          Example bass woofer audio at 60 Hz with 100 mV into the speaker coil is loud enough to be clearly heard and 100 Vpp might rattle something on the walls.



          While a 100 V/m 50 or 60 Hz electric field does nothing to us as not only are we tiny compared to the wavelength in xx km the impedance of our 100 pF fingertip is about 50 MΩ, but the salt and an arc can reduce a wire contact to 50 kΩ easily.



          You can easily detect 50~100 Vpp just by touching a 10:1 scope probe without touching the earth ground, which then shunts the electric field to ground.



          This means we can conduct it easily, but not absorb it as a high impedance electric field. We are low impedance as the antenna impedance of our boy is proportional to the super long EM wavelength at the speed of light.



          Sound pressures on the other hand in the air are pressure waves and are easily detected by the cilia hairs in our ears, which have progressive different lengths acting as resonators. Below 20 Hz we generally feel the vibrations more than hear them.



          Both RF impedances then reduces with increasing surface area into capacitors below antenna wavelengths, but in effect, we act as a weak coupling capacitor to low frequency so there is no energy absorption. It just passed through us. At higher radio and TV frequency at the sub millivolt signal levels we can act as an antenna without the sensation except for possibly better reception. However our energy SAR absorption acceptable rate is a function of frequency and watts/cm3 for a given volume of flesh with a certain "skin depth".



          Anecdotal



          Back in the 1970s our company designed and made 50 W and 100 W VHF and UHF transmitters. Even with the lid open for fine-tuning, and some low stray leakage, the tech's eyes would get bloodshot after a day's work on the production line. So the lid was redesigned with a tuning hole for a plastic screwdriver.



          We had all the US military handbooks in our library for aerospace design, so after graduation in the late 1970s, this is how I first learned about human susceptibility to RF spectrum levels.



          My first design project there as a young graduate was for a five-channel Doppler tracking Rx using US Navy transmitters around the western hemisphere with a Tx power about 1 megawatt suitable for 100 baud submarine communication all using carriers synchronized like GPS using nuclear clocks (Cesium). All I used was a 2 m (polar bear proof) whip antenna in the Beaufort Sea on an ice flow to track weather and ice movement in the 1970s.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited 24 mins ago









          Peter Mortensen

          1,56231422




          1,56231422










          answered 15 hours ago









          Tony EE rocketscientist

          57.6k22082




          57.6k22082




















              up vote
              3
              down vote













              This is an interesting question because I used to wonder the same thing (no, I'm saying it's an interesting question because of my former curiosity).



              You're confusing electromagnetic radiation (something radio produces) with pressure waves (something sound produces). Our ears cannot adjust to electromagnetic waves and they are certain not sensitive to changes in electromagnetic waves.



              Another way to look at it is that electromagnetic waves don't have nearly enough force to cause the ear drum to vibrate... whereas sound waves do.



              If you want to get on a very quantum level about this, think about how strong gluons are.






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                3
                down vote













                This is an interesting question because I used to wonder the same thing (no, I'm saying it's an interesting question because of my former curiosity).



                You're confusing electromagnetic radiation (something radio produces) with pressure waves (something sound produces). Our ears cannot adjust to electromagnetic waves and they are certain not sensitive to changes in electromagnetic waves.



                Another way to look at it is that electromagnetic waves don't have nearly enough force to cause the ear drum to vibrate... whereas sound waves do.



                If you want to get on a very quantum level about this, think about how strong gluons are.






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  3
                  down vote









                  This is an interesting question because I used to wonder the same thing (no, I'm saying it's an interesting question because of my former curiosity).



                  You're confusing electromagnetic radiation (something radio produces) with pressure waves (something sound produces). Our ears cannot adjust to electromagnetic waves and they are certain not sensitive to changes in electromagnetic waves.



                  Another way to look at it is that electromagnetic waves don't have nearly enough force to cause the ear drum to vibrate... whereas sound waves do.



                  If you want to get on a very quantum level about this, think about how strong gluons are.






                  share|improve this answer














                  This is an interesting question because I used to wonder the same thing (no, I'm saying it's an interesting question because of my former curiosity).



                  You're confusing electromagnetic radiation (something radio produces) with pressure waves (something sound produces). Our ears cannot adjust to electromagnetic waves and they are certain not sensitive to changes in electromagnetic waves.



                  Another way to look at it is that electromagnetic waves don't have nearly enough force to cause the ear drum to vibrate... whereas sound waves do.



                  If you want to get on a very quantum level about this, think about how strong gluons are.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 17 hours ago

























                  answered 17 hours ago









                  KingDuken

                  1,0802517




                  1,0802517



























                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded















































                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f396141%2frf-vs-audio-of-the-same-frequency%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Comments

                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What does second last employer means? [closed]

                      Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                      One-line joke