This is not homework, and there's no math section so i figured science would have to do. I'm looking for more of a math answer than a philosophical answer here

I guess this is a theoretical physics oriented question but I'm not 100% sure. Maybe theoretical math?



What I want to know is if the following can be 'mathematically explained' or not,here goes:


Is it possible that the universe could be represented as 'sound waves', and time is just 'silence' (a constant) being interrupted by the 'song/notes' of the universe as seen as vibrations (that act as an orchestra/orchestration of the universe [as string theory particles vibrating to make up the individual notes]). What I mean by orchestration is that the notes organize into matter (much like an orchestra comes together to sound good/complete with a mixture of notes).

Too many notes (string particles/atoms) put together in one area (dense black holes) start to cause too much 'noise' in the universe and cause a disruption in the 'silence' greatly by destroying the organization of the song played by the orchestration.


Are there any related scientific/mathematical/philosophical/theoretical physics theories/related topics?


FG for what I believe are insightful answers.

may have to re-write that to make more sense in my understanding/'theory'

Answer is no. Sound waves require a medium. What is the medium at which the universe is propagating? You certainly cannot say the universe itself.

String theory talks about 1 dimensional strings that vibrate, but it hasnt shown to be very useful. There is M-theory, which is like string theory but there are 2-d "branes" that act in similar ways to strings do, but I have not done research on it.

And time isnt really a constant. It is a relative thing that depends on the speed of the observer.

Check out arxiv.org and the physics forum I posted in your web development thread for more information. I would be glad to discuss it if you would like.

Edit: To be honest its not that poor of an idea. But wikipedia defines 'sound' as "a mechanical wave that is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through some medium (like air or water), composed of frequencies within the range of hearing" (The last part is questionable, but that's not the point). The universe is growing, but certainly not oscillating in pressure.

This post was edited by khemist on Sep 9 2013 09:52pm

Hmm, maybe I'm trying to say the way matter 'functions' at the sub-particle level and macro level based on the string theory concept. Dunno. Perhaps its just a philosophical metaphor. Thank you for telling me a bit more about the math/theory legitimacy aspect.

sent 10 fg

The major problem with string theory, from what I understand, is that while the calculations provide accurate results, the actual mathematics have essentially zero meaning. One can calculate decay rates and particle interactions but the process is unexplained. I believe there were some inconsistencies with other theories that limited the use of string theory to very particular instances as well.

This post was edited by khemist on Sep 9 2013 09:55pm

Interesting. I'll try to refine what I'm trying to say and do a bit more research. Thanks again.



Looking for anyone else's input.

theoretical physics is more or less a branch of applied math (but don't tell that to theoretical physicists, they might go ballistic)
and there is really no 'theoretical math' as a specific field

but to your general question:

cosmological models are build to accommodate observations and the attempt to reconcile those with what is still unclear
so if you want to create a new model you have to determine which observations you are going to accept within the limits of current instrumentation
and then you will have to ensure that the model you create is consistent
somehow i have great doubts if you can make any model which considers time to be static consistent in a way which will get peer approval
and as a side note, if you want to go with waves you should not restrict those to a very short segment of the potential spectrum
don't want to comment more because my views in this area are strongly influenced by my studies in theoretical physics

Thank you for the insight. Feel free to contribute further if you desire. I'm one of the few people in this world that actually appreciates and values knowledge/intellect/theory without needing to be 'graded' on it.

Do you know of any related theories I could check out to possibly help me refine my concept/thoughts?




I'm somewhat inclined to agree at times.

that is certainly to be appreciated
but do i interpret it right to imply that you have no formal training in theoretical physic or functional analysis?

while there are some simple description for cosmological theories around, they hide the fact that an immense amount of work forms the basis for these
and to build any reasonably comprehensive different model will require likewise an immense amount of work and prerequisite knowledge
without having a decent grounding in theoretical physics including the understanding of necessary mathematics
(just have a look at hilbert spaces and how much you understand of those)
it is more or less impossible to fully comprehend the current ones or to build any reasonable new model

btw, how did you come to your idea?
did you recently read the silmarillion by tolkien?
or did you find some pseudo-scientific youtube video?

This post was edited by brmv on Sep 10 2013 09:16am

As I read your thoughts, I imagined Daredevil's ability to map out his surroundings via sound waves.

One insightful idea I would like to inject here, is that what if the medium sound needs to travel about (elements formed into compounds as we know them), is actually sound waves (this terminology possibly being interchangeable with the word 'energy') being stuck in a seemingly infinite looped-state where two colliding soundwaves become impassible? A still sound wave, or one spinning in a circle, can be the energy-transfer proxy for a moving soundwave.