[xpecialfx]

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?

[Capuchin]

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.

[vrooje]

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." :)

[Capuchin]

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

[vrooje]

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. :)

[rudi_in]

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."

;)

[Capuchin]

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

[vrooje]

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. :)

[xpecialfx]

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?

[Capuchin]

THere are? :/

[xpecialfx]

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.

[rudi_in]

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.

[Capuchin]

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

[rudi_in]

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

Could we say that they make sound though?

[Capuchin]

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 :)

[xpecialfx]

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.

[Capuchin]

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 :)

[xpecialfx]

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?

[Capuchin]

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).

[xpecialfx]

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