I was told that electrons, protons, and nuetrons were made up of sound energy. If so please expound. Thank you. Oh yeah, if not then what?

Uhm... where did you hear that? If they were made of sound energy wouldny you expect them to hum a lot? :)

Nobody know s what the fundamental building blocks of matter are. One of the most recent theories is that it's made up of tiny vibrating strings. However, string theory has yet to predict anything measurable, so it's still just a theory.

However, string theory has yet to predict anything measurable, so it's still just a theory.

However, it's not "just a theory" in the sense that Evolution or Relativity are theories -- which they both are, and both have stood the test of time after making many detailed (now confirmed) predictions.

I've always felt that string theory should really be called "String Hypothesis." :)

In this case I was using theory in the popular sense, not the scientific sense :)

That's what I figured! I'm a bit of a stickler so I had to point it out -- I'm always trying to convey to my students the difference between a scientific Theory and the popular idea of theory, e.g. the theory of Santa Claus. :)

I have always thought of it this way...

A law is an observed behavior or condition.

A theory is our attempt to explain it. (Many times with a mathematical formula.)

Of course, there are many debates over "theory" but does it not really boil down to the fact that we put forth ("sometimes") our best effort to explain the unknown using theories?


:)

LOST LAW: (Observed behavior or condition) Jimmy is lost.

LOST THEORY: (Our attempt to explain) The probability of one getting lost is directly proportional to the number of times one says "You can't miss it."

;)

I don't believe that theory and law mean different things, it's just up to the person what to call their observation :p

Hmm, I'm not sure I agree with that. I think of a law as a Theory that has been in place for so long that it's acceptable to call it "proven." I think it would be acceptable to talk about Newton's Laws (at low speeds/densities), but it's still Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

However, I agree that where we draw the line between them is subjective.

But I'm not sure that if I come up with a hypothesis, I get to decide whether to call it a theory or a law! If that were so, then I've got a whole bunch of new "laws" in my inbox, written by people with no physics background and living in huts on mountains, that directly contradict well-tested theories like the Big Bang and Relativity. :)

Thank you for your replies, they made me think of another question. There are three theories of evolution, and each one of them conclusively prove the other two to be wrong, what's up with that?

THere are? :/

Ella Fitzgerald hits a high note and crystal shatters. The Tacoma bridge was struck with a wind that brought in the self oscillation factor, the bridge began to bend and twist like a snake before it eventually came apart. Therefore considering that electrons are always moving around the nucleus, would it not suffice to say that all things vibrate, and "hum" hmmmmmmmmmmmmm? Not trying to be argumentive, just sharing some of my thoughts.

All atoms do move...

Even in a solid, the atoms are packed tightly together and vibrate in place.

While quite minuscule, they do have mass and take up space and are therefore classified as matter.

Since sound is a form of energy and not matter, I don't think we can say that protons, neutrons, and electrons are made of sound energy.

Perhaps an argument can be made about them making sound though. Obviously, it would fall beneath the capabilities of our own hearing but that would not disprove the theory.

Of course they vibrate, because they have energy, but that has nothing to do with them being made of sound.

Yes, that is my point. We cannot say they are made of sound.

Could we say that they make sound though?

I'm not entirely sure that an atom is big enough to cause a pressure wave in the air, since the air is made of molecules and moving the same order of magnitude. I don't think it's really plausible.

I was answering xpecialfx by the way :)

Thanks guys, here's my next question, what's the possibilities of energy from a different dimension existing as a solid in our dimension. Once again thanks for taking out the time to answer my questions, I really appreciate it.

How do you mean our dimension? We experience four dimensions. Three spatial and a temporal. String theory posits that there may be up to 10 dimensions in this world. I'm not sure what you're asking :)

A dimension other than our physical one, matter vs. anti matter, another physical dimension where atomic structure is different than our own. I believe Einstein had a theory that two physical dimensions could co-exist on the same plane and not disturb one another because of the different atomic structure?

You mean a parallel universe? Both matter and anti-matter exist in this universe (although where all the antimatter is is one of the great mysteries).

Yes a parallel universe, so is it possible for energy from a parallel universe to be a solid substance in our own?

Mass is a form of energy in this universe, you don't need parallel universes to describe our current world. This universe is so huge and complex and fascinating, why do you need to propose ideas involving other universes we have no evidence of?

The only thing that a parallel universe may have contributed to is seeding the big bang, but that's highly theoretical.

Many of the things you can think up are present in this universe :)

So what is the answer to the original post? Isn't everything that underlies what appears to be matter, energy? Could it possibly be sound energy even if we can't hear it? Is x-ray or Gamma ray a sound energy?

Sound energy is a pressure wave. It doesn't really make sense for there to be sound energy beyond the atomic level, what is the medium the pressure is propagating through?

That is a great question. What is the media that x-rays and gamma rays or even gravity are propagating through?

This isn't my point. Sound waves are a wave of pressure in a medium, this is what we understand by "sound".

EM waves can be thought of as particles, which don't need a medium to travel through. Gravitational waves move through space-time. I suppose you could say that that is their medium.

Sound waves require a medium, because they are fluctuations in pressure that travel by transferring energy through a medium. I don't see how that can happen on the subatomic level - it doesn't make much sense for matter to be sound energy.

Of course there's string theory, that posits that each type of particle is a string vibrating in a certain mode - each mode being a different particle. This is probably the closest you would get. But the matter would be more meaningfully thought of as being composed of the string - the mode just characterises the matter into a particle. String theory has not given us any testable results though.

I've heard that when one particle is manipulated, it affects other particles and that the person doing the observing affects the particles simply by his observation-does that make sense? So if that is true, I assume that every particle is somehow connected. By the string theory or the media in which it resides? I see what you mean by sound waves needing a media to react within to manipulate that media thereby causing a sound. What I don't understand is how, on the subatomic level, seemingly the same thing is happening. Action/reaction. Is that manipulation local or does it create a simultanious chain reaction throughout the entire universe? Could the stuff they call Dark Matter actually be the media or what we call string theory? Another time space antireality, on the negative or reverse side of our observable universe? I hope this makes sense. I know what I want to ask but putting this stuff into words is hard for some one with no scientific background!

Are you talking about quantum entanglement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement)?

Or the uncertainty principle?

String theory has not produced any measurable evidence, so I'm not going to go into how string theory would explain any of this, because it doesn't at the present time.

Not every particle is linked at all. Only entangled particles, and they are not linked in a way that can facilitate information transfer faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.

Hi guys, I like the discourse I've just read over, it brings this thought to mind, which I hope I can word it correctly. I'll try using an analogy from the movie men in black. Remember at the end of the movie, the camera began pull away from the earth, then beyond our universe, then beyond our galaxy, then eventually to a marble in some aliens hand. Now I do not believe that were all in a marble, but my point is this, lets look at this scenario in reverse. Lets say from the aliens point of view, looking in the atomic structure of the marble. Our conventional tools of today are limited as to how deep we can look inward,obviously. But just as outer space is infinite, so too is, umm, shall we say inner space. So as the alien looking with its electron micro scope views the marbles inner galaxies as atoms, when in all actuality they are stars and planets made up of atoms, therefore the possibility of a medium could exists for sound energy. Who's to say that there is no sub-atomic make up for atoms. I think I worded that correctly. Basically big can infinitely get bigger, and small can infinitely get smaller. So inside electrons protons, and neutrons there could be even smaller particles,( unseen ),but a medium that when manipulated by sound energy, form electrons, protons, and neutrons. I don't know, what do you think? Do I got something here or do I need to be committed?

Nope, protons and neutrons (and the other hadrons) are made up of particles we call quarks and gluons.

As far as we can tell, electrons (and the other leptons) are point like and fundamental. We also believe that quarks and gluons are also point-like and fundamental. There is no evidence that these even have a size, let alone have anything in them. All the measurements that we have suggest that these particles act exactly like we would expect a particle with no dimensions to act. (that doesn't mean that we're right, but they're definitely smaller than any size we can currently measure).

As for space, I'm afraid it isn't infinite.

Actually I do believe that space is limited, but what would you say is outside outer space?

There isn't anything outside the universe.

Really? How can you be so sure!

What happened to Scotty? Hmmm!

You mean star trek... they travelled through the universe... Not beyond it.

What do you think is outside the universe? :)