An obvious analog of the correspondence principle [1], usually stated in terms of QM and Newtonian physics, holds here. It&#x27;s going to take more than &quot;new physics&quot; to change the behavior of sound in this rather-well-understood regime, it&#x27;s going to take physics-breaking-physics.<p>There&#x27;s a time and a place for &quot;we may learn new things in the future&quot;. This is not that time. There&#x27;s no room for &quot;new physics&quot; to be hiding here, short of postulating outright magic, which will probably have a great deal more applications in the world than salvaging something that was always frankly a silly idea anyhow.<p>I mean, why go to bat for this idea anyhow? It&#x27;s not flying cars or FTL, it&#x27;s an incredibly annoying, inferior way of doing something you probably do every day already, and you aren&#x27;t sitting there going &quot;Gosh, this is a really inconvenient way of charging my phone and there&#x27;s nothing I can do about it&quot;, because there already is something you can do about it if you just can&#x27;t <i>stand</i> wires. Inductive chargers work and are years-old off-the-shelf tech. I have a cousin-in-law that was involved in marketing them. (It doesn&#x27;t &quot;beam&quot; the power, but, well, that&#x27;s why it works. EM beaming certainly seems to be &quot;less&quot; impossible, but probably never practical for ambient personal electronic charging.) Even if this all worked as claimed it would still be yawn-worthy tech. Hardly a reason to resort to nuke-the-entire-philosophical-world arguments about our complete ignorance of everything everywhere ever.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Correspondence_principle" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Correspondence_principle</a>