The Effect of Sound and The Universe

[William]

Can silence actually drive someone crazy??



If anything, sound is more likely to drive one crazy, than silence.

A personality will use their brains to fill the silence with the sound of their inner voice and these sounds can translate to pictures [visions aka hallucinations] on the mind screen.

If silence could make someone crazy, how is it that this does not occur to deaf people?

Perhaps there is other stimuli [visual] which the personality can focus on.

Observation:

In the above video, the Silence Room is also made completely dark.

The only sound made is whatever the persons body produces. Non-sound still heard by the personality as sound, is accomplished through the internal voice of [which is largely of] the personality [subject] itself.

Deaf people might experience that inner voice more through the visual aspect of the 'inner voice' re "a picture paints a thousand words" and words being 'sounds'.
Blind people, the other way around.

Just as blind folk can feel objects which in turn gives them "pictures" of the object in their mind, perhaps deaf people can 'hear' through the vibrations that things produce, and create "sounds" in their minds through that process?

We can see that sound produces order from chaos.

The Evidence:

Sample One:


Sample Two:



A Theist Claim:

"We exist within a Creation and The Creator used Sound to create and maintain the Universe."

The Evidence:

Sample One:

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." ~ Genesis 1:3

Sample Two:



Conclusion:
FOR DEBATE:

Q: Does Sound Create The Universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to William in post #1]

There is no sound in space. The Bible says that God said. or (amar in Hebrew) amar means: to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend, so take your pick. But the point of Genesis 1:1 is that God existed before the universe. So how do waves propagate outside our universe? And string theory is an interesting theory along with quantum field theory which says that mass is created by quantum fields that permeate the universe. That would also be in the form of waves. What is also interesting is that quantum fields create an infinite matrix. So everything is made from a wave function. So the Bible is correct if we interpret God speaking causing waves in the quantum field which created matter. This can even have a deeper meaning. God's very voice created the quantum fields that make up all of the matter in which we see.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #1]

There is no sound in space.

A quick search reveals:

Why is there no sound in space?

Sound does not travel at all in space. The vacuum of outer space has essentially zero air. Because sound is just vibrating air, space has no air to vibrate and therefore no sound. ... Radio is a form of electromagnetic radiation just like light and can therefore travel through the vacuum of space just fine.

The Bible says that God said. or (amar in Hebrew) amar means: to say, to answer, to say in one's heart, to think, to command, to promise, to intend, so take your pick.

I do not think it is a case of 'take your pick'. If you were to pick "to say" in that instance, it would imply that The Creator was bigger than the Universe but had vocal chords

But the point of Genesis 1:1 is that God existed before the universe.

The point of this thread is to explore the idea of sound creating the Universe. In that - it focuses on Genesis 1:3

So how do waves propagate outside our universe?

The OP assumes the interest in waves propagated within the universe - specifically creating the Galaxies through some type of sound.

And string theory is an interesting theory along with quantum field theory which says that mass is created by quantum fields that permeate the universe. That would also be in the form of waves.

It might be that mass is created off of the Quantum Field. I see no reason as to why that has to be pluralized as my understanding is that Quantum particles at their source - while many, are all one and the same. It is only when they vibrate at certain frequencies that they become certain types of mass.

What is also interesting is that quantum fields create an infinite matrix.

Quantum fields are the quantum theoretical generalizations of classical fields. The two archetypal classical fields are Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Einstein's metric field of gravitation. ... In a quantum field theory, what we perceive as particles are excitations of the quantum field itself. [LINK]

I think that the QF can be imagined initially as an infinite inert medium which was excited by vibration and is now in excited in various trillions of points [Galaxies] each also containing billions of points [stars etc] and the Galaxies are perhaps misidentified as being in "QFs" implying that somehow each QF is different/separate from the other, rather than seeing that it is really the one QF. [Quantum Entanglement.]

So everything is made from a wave function.

Which is most often associated with sound.

So the Bible is correct if we interpret God speaking causing waves in the quantum field which created matter.

In the case of the OP, the argument is that the 'speaking' The Creator did, was specifically, "to think the Universe into existence." and that this thinking continues [has not stopped - still goes on] based upon the evidence that the Universe relative to itself, is only still in the initial stages of its forecasted life-span.

This can even have a deeper meaning. God's very voice created the quantum fields that make up all of the matter in which we see.

Unless that 'voice' was really a thought, which would mean that the QT acts as a mind-screen and is an aspect of The Creators Mind, rather than something which was created from or through a source external to The Creator.

Given the evidence, it is logical to assume the 'voice' is The Creators internal thought(s) rather than there actually exist some unbelievably bigger than the Universe, entity with a form which acts as an apparatus in order to produce external sound.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #20]

"According to string theory, absolutely everything in the universe—all of the particles that make up matter and forces—is comprised of tiny vibrating fundamental strings."

String theory is still trying to get onto the big stage, but the scale of an average string is so incredibly tiny (10^-33 cm) I think the definition of "sound" would have to be expanded to include virtually anything that vibrates on any scale from dimensions smaller than atomic nuclei to the scale of galaxies. From a PBS article (that for some reason won't display in my browser):

"If an atom were magnified to the size of the solar system, a string would be the size of a tree."
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/s ... heory.html

Maybe replace sound with vibrations as sound normally implies only a tiny range of frequencies that animals with ears can process (under 100 KHz or so ... humans are around 20-20,000 Hz). This might greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #23]

Maybe replace sound with vibrations as sound normally implies only a tiny range of frequencies that animals with ears can process (under 100 KHz or so ... humans are around 20-20,000 Hz). This might greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things.

The issue with this is that it restricts sound only to what can be heard by biological lifeforms on this one planet.
We know humans can only see a small percentage of light spectrum, but we do not argue therefore that light in the universe is only what we can actually see, and anything else is vibrations.

We know by looking, that sound is most likely involved in the formation of Galaxies. That these sounds are outside the frequency range which humans call 'sound' does not mean sound is not happening.

So while it may serve to "greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things" to see things in the terms you suggest, one has to do so by subterfuge rather than through science.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #24]

So while it may serve to "greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things" to see things in the terms you suggest, one has to do so by subterfuge rather than through science.

My only quibble was with use of the word "sound", as you appear to be referring to vibrations of any kind over any frequencies even without any mechanism(s) for converting those vibrations into the perception of something equating to "sound" as a human would interpret it. But the whole thread concept is too far out there for me to follow so I'll go back into the shadows.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #24]

So while it may serve to "greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things" to see things in the terms you suggest, one has to do so by subterfuge rather than through science.

My only quibble was with use of the word "sound", as you appear to be referring to vibrations of any kind over any frequencies even without any mechanism(s) for converting those vibrations into the perception of something equating to "sound" as a human would interpret it. But the whole thread concept is too far out there for me to follow so I'll go back into the shadows.

Before you retire - the point I am making re your comment is about keeping science in the argument - and your suggestion that we replace the word "sound" with the word "vibrations" for the explicate intention that this somehow might "greatly restrict the god being's scope for creating things" isn't coming from a scientific position but an anti-theist position.

But even given your suggestion, you are still stuck with explaining how vibrations exist without sound being involved.

The kind of sound involved with creating Galaxies would be beyond our ability to perceive as 'sound' but our eyes at least can perceive the evidence of this sound through what comes from it, which is what the OP is pointing to, and in that - the concept is not at all "too far out there" for any intelligent personality to understand. It is physics.
And further to that point, what about our situation as human beings within it, is NOT 'far out' anyway. We who dare to, will face it for what it is...

Think on the popular Big Bang Theory - which has SOUND in its own heading. Now surely it is not any sound known to the human ear which the theory is speaking to, but it is sound nonetheless.

So, this is not a matter of theism versus atheism. This is a matter of science verses shadowy subterfuge. Where do we want to stand? In the shadows of ignorance or in The Light of Truth?

So please, while you retire to the shadows, perhaps think about the idea presented in the OP and apply science regarding that, and if it turns out that you cannot debunk what is presented, then think about supporting it.

Cheers

W

[brunumb]

The kind of sound involved with creating Galaxies would be beyond our ability to perceive as 'sound' but our eyes at least can perceive the evidence of this sound through what comes from it, which is what the OP is pointing to, and in that - the concept is not at all "too far out there" for any intelligent personality to understand. It is physics.

If it can't be perceived as sound, then what qualifies it as sound rather than some other phenomenon?

Think on the popular Big Bang Theory - which has SOUND in its own heading. Now surely it is not any sound known to the human ear which the theory is speaking to, but it is sound nonetheless.

It might have sound in its title but the big bang got its name from Fred Hoyle who thought the theory was total nonsense.

After World War II, two distinct possibilities emerged. One was Fred Hoyle's steady-state model, whereby new matter would be created as the universe seemed to expand. In this model the universe is roughly the same at any point in time.[72] The other was Lemaître's Big Bang theory, advocated and developed by George Gamow, who introduced BBN[73] and whose associates, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman, predicted the CMB.[74] Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase that came to be applied to Lemaître's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #26]

But even given your suggestion, you are still stuck with explaining how vibrations exist without sound being involved.

That's easy. "Sound" is just one manisfestation of a specific type of vibration (a pressure wave that enters the ear and ultimately is converted to electrical signals which the brain processes to produce a perception that we call sound). Vibrations are a far broader and more general category describing any type of oscillatory motion in any medium at any frequency or amplitude. Sound is a vibration of sorts, but all vibrations are not sound (the huge majority are not ... eg. photons travel through empty space via oscillating ("vibrating") electric and magnetic fields, but these don't make "sounds").

brunumb commented on the "big bang" reference .... that phrase has nothing whatsoever to do with "sound" even if the word "bang" might. The cosmological "big bang" was not an explosion:

https://www.britannica.com/story/was-th ... -explosion

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #27]

If it can't be perceived as sound, then what qualifies it as sound rather than some other phenomenon?

What other phenomena do we know of apart from sound, which has such an effect? I am certainly open to examining alternate explanations.

It might have sound in its title but the big bang got its name from Fred Hoyle who thought the theory was total nonsense.

Ironic, isn't it. How something meant to mock, becomes a standard title for a serious theory.

[William]

That's easy. "Sound" is just one manisfestation of a specific type of vibration (a pressure wave that enters the ear and ultimately is converted to electrical signals which the brain processes to produce a perception that we call sound).

As I wrote about in a previous post, just because the human ear is unable to hear particular frequencies, does not mean these frequencies are not sound. You would not claim that sound didn't exist before the human ear existed, would you?

Vibrations are a far broader and more general category describing any type of oscillatory motion in any medium at any frequency or amplitude.

The point being that something causes the vibrations to occur, as mentioned in the OP evidence.

Sound is a vibration of sorts, but all vibrations are not sound (the huge majority are not ... eg. photons travel through empty space via oscillating ("vibrating") electric and magnetic fields, but these don't make "sounds").

The subject is not about how vibrations become sound once they hit the human ear mechanism. Rather the subject is that even that we cannot hear the sound which caused the vibrations which in turn condensed quantum particles into shapes called Galaxies, we can see the evidence that sound is involved in forming said Galaxies.

In this, it is sound which is the what caused light to become, and to travel. Electric and magnetic fields, don't make "sounds". Sound has to be, that which made those fields.

As to my mention of the Big Bang Theory, it appears that whatever theory one presents - even Steady-State Theory, we have the same visual evidence which supports the notion that sound is what does the creating of the Galactic objects in the Universe.