Music of the Universe

In seventh grade, my science teacher told us,

"There's no sound in space." 

Perhaps you were told this too? After all, space is a vacuum, and sound requires a medium to travel through, right?

Like so many of our cherished childhood "facts," the answer is yes...and no. I made this delightfully unsettling discovery this morning, while reading "For the Love of Physics" by MIT physics professor Walter Lewin (this book deserves a spot in the literary vesicle). It turns out that space is not a perfect vacuum (though a much better vacuum than any vacuum we could make on Earth...is "perfection" relative?):  Matter (mostly plasma) exists in space, and  therefore pressure waves, and thus sound, can be produced and propagated. There's actually lots of sound in space! The catch is, our ears can't hear those frequencies. So yes, space is a vacuum, but no, it's not a perfect vacuum. And yes, there's sound in space, but no, we can't hear the sound (and if we can't hear the sound, is it a "sound"? It's the age-old question, "If a tree falls in the wood and no one hears it, does it make a sound?"--see related post). 

Disappointing, isn't it? After a promising realization of sound in space, we still won't ever be able to hear the music of the cosmos? 

Once again, the answer is yes...and no. True, "the big bang produced a bass gong sound that now has a wavelength of about 500 million light-years, a frequency of about fifty octaves (a factor of 10^15) below anything our ears can hear" (For the Love of Physics). The good news is that astronomer Mark Whittle has reproduced the sounds of the big bang for us to listen to (small caveat: it's raised in pitch by 50 octaves and compressed in time from 100 million years into 10 seconds)!

Click to listen to the big bang:

Read about big bang acoustics here: http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~dmw8f/BBA_web/index_frames.html

Consider for a moment if the most basic units of the universe were like musical notes--resonant frequencies of unimaginably tiny strings. And these "musical notes" were what produced all our elementary particles (such as the electron). In effect, this is the basic tenet of string theory. And if string theory holds any ground (who knows if it does?), then the universe is a beautiful symphony of sound!

Of course, that depends on what you constitute "beauty" and "music" as. You've heard the "music" of the heavenly spheres. Now it's up to you to decide if that constitutes as music. The answer's probably yes...and no.

The Art of Medicine

An excerpt from "The Art of Medicine: Thoughts on a G String" from The Lancet (2009):

There have been writings about the relation between
medicine and the listening aspects of music, but nothing
on the playing of music. Why do so many doctors pursue
music? Why does the orchestra of doctors in Boston (the
Longwood Symphony) receive audition inquiries on a
daily basis?

Mark Jude Tramo, a neurologist, songwriter/musician,
and director of The Institute for Music and Brain Science
at Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital, feels that
“there is overlap between the emotional and social aspects
of relating to sick patients and communicating emotion to
others through music…Some would speculate that there is
[also] an overlap between aptitude for science, which most
premeds major in, and for music.”

Lisa Wong—violinist, paediatrician, and president of
the Longwood Symphony Orchestra—speaks for the
many who came to medicine after years dedicated to
serious musicanship. “The music we create builds in us
an emotional strength, sense of identity, and sense of
order. Then it is given away—we play for others, we play in
ensembles. We come to medicine and it is the same thing.
The giving, the service—in music and medicine—is a natural
connection.”

I was surprised to find my eyes watering after reading the article. Surprised to find myself laughing sighs. It struck me as a deeply personal grasp of my own motive for becoming a doctor, and I suppose an afirmation of it in some way other than my own head was more than just reassuring.

The musician touches others through music--a statement banal enough. What gets less noticed are transformations music brings upon the musician. Music is a beautiful gift, and all the more beautiful because it has helped me realize that medicine works the same way, and beyond. Music and medicine are about sharing something beautiful, about creating something extraordinary together—musician and listener, physician and patient. Musicians may craft an experience to bring their listeners adventure, escape, relief; Doctors may craft an experience to bring their patients life. Sometimes life seems so ordinary that we forget that it is extraordinary. Yet, life—is something more beautiful, far richer than any song could express. Medicine, music, and most things I suppose, are about touching others.

We're all mad here: Rachmaninoff and Hypnotherapy

Rachmaninoff fell into a deep depression after the disastrous debut of his First Symphony in 1897, and underwent hypnotherapy as a result. He reportedly produced his Piano Concerto No. 2 through the help of regular sessions. The composer himself stated: “… I heard the same hypnotic formula repeated day after day while I lay half asleep in an armchair in [Dr. Nikolai Dahl]’s study. ‘You will begin to write your concerto. … You will work with great facility. … The concerto will be of excellent quality.’ I felt that Dahl’s treatment had strengthened my nervous system to a miraculous degree. Out of gratitude I dedicated my Second Concerto to him.” (source: Philadelphia Orchestra)

I used to believe that hypnosis was in fact, not an altered state of consciousness, but one in which one finds one's own expectations and the expectations of others vastly altered, so that you believe in yourself. I saw it as a kind of extreme placebo effect. And, as a fervent believer in the power of belief (naturally), I was satisfied with that.

But, I'm beginning to believe in the wonders of hypnosis as going behind the mind, or perhaps more aptly stated, having physical influences (mind to body), as Rachmaninoff remarks, "strengthened my nervous system to a miraculous degree". All this is more compelling by the accepted use of self-hypnosis to allow women to undergo natural childbirth with minimal pain, as one example. I'm starting to wonder, where do we draw the line between mind and body? (Related post: Body and Soul)

Interestingly though, Rachmaninoff's statement reminds me of the power of religion, which is itself the power of belief manifested in a different form--"had strengthened me... to a miraculous degree...out of gratitude I dedicated my Second Concerto to him." I'm a bit of a skeptic of hypnosis and religion, yet I have a respectful sense of awe toward both.

Just a thought. Also another thought--Rach 2 is mad. It's so often associated with madness. In Rachmaninoff's case, it's a journey out of the madness of depression. For the case of the schizoaffect-ed pianist, David Helfgott, it's said to be the piece that brought "madness" upon him. It's mad in so many ways and we love it in so many ways.

Well, I guess for us musicians, scientists, skeptics--"We're all mad here."

Paul Bloom: The Origins of Pleasure

Another great TED talk.

Why do we like an original painting better than a forgery? Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that human beings are essentialists -- that our beliefs about the history of an object change how we experience it, not simply as an illusion, but as a deep feature of what pleasure (and pain) is.

Paul Bloom: The Origins of Pleasure


This video became a "rhyming event" for me today. I watched it just seconds before going to the home society where I've been playing piano for kids with developmental disabilities this summer. As I enter, I see that John, one of the kids, has a freshly-painted finger-painting sitting on his lap. It's of a heart. He says it's for me. That meant so much to me, and I though it was such a beautiful painting. Most people would probably look at it, see a blob of red and pink, and shrug.  But I'd rather have this painting than a Vermeer. So yes, it goes to show, the "history" of an object makes all the difference in our experience of it.

Paul Bloom brings up good points about our experience of music as well. The piece, 4'33 has been under scrutiny in relation to so many topics--how do we define music? how does the fact that Cage composed it change how we view the piece? I find it amusing that not only is 4'33 on iTunes, but you can enjoy it here on youtube performed by a full orchestra and a packed audience that gives it a standing ovation (and plenty of coughing between movements). The Joshua Bell "experiment" (in quotes because it wasn't really a controlled experiment) mentioned in the video has a slew of other factors involved as well, like the environment (I disagree with the video--the listeners in the noisy subway, busy with places to be, were not listening to the same Joshua Bell played in a perfectly acousted concert hall. "History" can't account for everything of course.

Once again, psychology has shown us the power of belief in shaping our experiences.

The mind is its own place,
and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell,
a Hell of Heaven

--John Milton