A vibration that causes a physical resonance in an inanimate object has nothing to do with hearing music. Rocks have physical resonance. Rocks don’t hear music.
Showing that plants can hear music isn’t the same thing as showing that plants respond physically to physical vibrations. This is classic woo reasoning, which is to say it’s completely muddled. Music isn’t simply vibration, otherwise every sound would be music, and the plant would show no preferential growth for one sort of sound than another.
In order to show that plants hear music you have to show that they have some way to differentiate music from other sorts of sounds and respond to it specifically: some manner of receiving and processing sound, isolating music from other sorts of sound, and then changing behavior in response to certain sorts of music in particular. Nothing of the sort has ever been demonstrated.
Of course, animals can and do respond to some sounds that humans cannot hear: dogs can hear some notes that are outside (normal) human ranges of hearing. So what? Dogs have ears and auditory cortexes. Plants don’t.
I agree with all of the above, but perhaps I was not clear in my explanation.
I never meant to imply that plants can hear. I meant to say that all things are physically subject to vibrations and that certain vibrations are destructive in nature, depending on the molecular structure of the exposed object. A wineglass which is tuned to a certain high pitch, may be broken by vibrations at that precise pitch. The glass cannot “hear” the pitch but the fact that it shatters proves it does respond to that pitch (obviously the harmonic response of the glass is detrimental to its existence). I already cited the slow disintegration of a bridge under the constant rumble of traffic and the positive reinforcement of a musical note by the soundboard of say, a string instrument.
Thus, IMO, vibrations (sound waves) can and do have an impact on the molecular integrity of the object exposed to such vibrations.
Is it woo to speculate if living things exposed to vibrations which are in harmony with their molecular structure may find benefit in their development, or conversely, exposed to vibrations which are not in harmony with their molecular structure, will experience a detrimental effect on their devolpment? I believe some of the large dairies play music to the milkcows to induce greater milk production (even as they know nothing of the concept of music) and when designing large physical structures such as a skyscraper or a suspension bridge, the amount of sway generated by an earthquake or the steady buffeting of winds is a major consideration.
I am not proposing anything magical here, just that certain vibrations may create a positive or negative harmonic responses in both living or inanimate objects. In short, most living things things perform well or even thrive under ideal conditions, which may well include the harmonious vibrations of sound waves. On the other hand an ideal condition for an inanimate object may well be the prevention of harmonic vibrations.