Here's a great tip:
Enter your email address and we'll send you our weekly magazine by email with fresh, exciting and thoughtful content that will enrich your inbox and your life, week after week. And it's free.
Oh, and don't forget to like our facebook page too!
Contact Us

Cosmic Vibrations

Cosmic Vibrations

Everything is forever running and returning


What do string theory and Hebrew letters have in common?

No one has ever seen a string, and no one has yet come up with a practical experiment to demonstrate that string theory is true. Despite all that, I still find it an attractive idea. For two reasons: Because it attempts to explain the fundamental fabric of the universe in a single, consistent way. And because that way is so strikingly similar to the explanation Kabbalists have held for centuries.

String theory says the universe is made of multiple kinds of vibrations. The vibrations are called “strings,” because they are one-dimensional. My guitar also has strings, not perfectly one-dimensional, but they also vibrate. The vibration of my guitar strings generates sound—hopefully, nice sounds. The vibrations of the strings we’re talking about here generate matter.

How does that work? Well, string theory posits that vibration translates into energy—the higher the frequency, the greater the energy. Energy, Einstein has already explained, translates into matter—as in E=mc2. So, using the speed of light as the exchange rate, these vibrations generate particles of matter.

It’s strange to think of matter as a tune being played by a string.

We intuitively think of matter as something very static, just sitting there. It’s strange to think of matter as a tune being played by a string. But that’s what we’re saying here. According to the tune a string plays, so will be the properties of the particle it generates. There are many properties to a particle, and string theory tries to deal with all of them, partly by vibrating these strings through multiple dimensions and describing them as closed or open. But the principal property of the string is its vibration frequency.

A string playing at one frequency gets you an electron. At another, it gets you the tiny quarks that make up a neutron. Yet another gets you the quarks you need for a proton. And so on, until the whole range of 35 or so particles, along with their 19 different constants, all follow from the single concept of a vibrating string. In essence, a very simple idea. (In application, researchers have found, it becomes almost impossibly complex; but hey, that’s not our problem.)

So now we can define the multitude of different particles in terms of something else—strings. But what are strings? A physicist will just tell you that they are “fundamental.” That means something from which everything else is made. “Fundamental” means it just has to be there, so it is. Which doesn’t tell us much.

Basically, the only meaningful way we can talk about these strings is in terms of their vibrations. No vibrations means no energy, no mass—and so, obviously, no string. No strings means no particles. No particles, no universe. And so, all of the matter and energy in the universe is defined in relation to fundamental objects that lack any further meaning. Other than vibrating.

As I mentioned, these one-dimensional strings are said to be vibrating within multiple dimensions—at last count, eleven of them. We can’t see those dimensions (they folded up and got real small, if you can imagine that). But the math works (mostly). Add the weirdness of supersymmetry to the mix, and string theory is begging many metaphysical questions about the nature of our reality and why we perceive it the way we do.

While they’re out there groping for the meta behind the physics, I just want to suggest picking a few of the offerings of a metaphysical tree that’s been around a long time, and also explains a lot. That’s the Tree of Life, a.k.a. Kabbalah.

Running and Returning

To the Kabbalist, the fundamental fabric of the cosmos is not strings, but otiyot (letters). The sound of each of the otiyot, as well as their two-dimensional form on parchment or paper, are analogs for the varied articulations of creative energy that generate our material world. And that energy is in a state of perpetual oscillation, called ratzo v’shov, “running and returning.” It is running back to its origin in an act of self-annihilation (zero state), from whence it is driven back into reality (nonzero state)—only to run back home again to zero.

The sound and shape of the otiot are analogs for the creative energy that generates our world.

No, not the kind of kid you would want in a daycare situation. But think about it a little more, and you’ll see why it has to be that way:

The otiyot are meant to explain more than matter and energy. They are meant to explain why there is anything at all. Why are there patterns of nature? Why are there laws of quantum physics? Why is there uncertainty and chaos? Why should anything make sense, or follow any pattern?

It all begins here: The fundamental substance of the universe is not matter, not energy, not strings, not vibrations, not a set of laws, not intelligence. Fundamentally, the universe is generated out of something that cannot be defined in any way. That which the Kabbalists call Ohr Ein SofInfinite Light.

The Ohr Ein Sof holds the power of existence. After all, that’s what it means to be infinite, undefined and unbounded: It means there are no possibilities that are not open, no boundaries that cannot be traversed—including the boundary of self and other. That is why the most exquisite demonstration of this unboundedness is in the sudden appearance of otherness, of an unlimited set of worlds, each its own realm of self-contained reality—until the ultimate extent of this world, where things appear well-defined, following predictable patterns, and look as though they have no origin other than themselves.

That is the ultimate unboundedness: Extending into that which is other, generating an entity that has so totally lost context with its origin that it perceives itself as all there is—and sustaining it in that state.

On the inside, infinite light. On the outside, tidily finite.

So, here’s this infinity pumping out a neatly bounded creation. If you could peer beneath the hood of this creation, you would see only that unbounded, infinite light. But on the outside, it’s tidily finite. Think a moment, and you’ll realize this is a big problem. Imagine running the 22,500 megawatts of the turbines at the Three Gorges Dam through a flashlight bulb. That’s just big-finite inside smaller-finite. Here it’s the absolute infinite within a (seemingly) absolute finite.

A truly infinite force leaves no room for differentiation within time and space, never mind patterns of nature. How can there be a world if there’s no before and after, up and down, or any consistent patterns?

So, the infinite cannot enter.

But on the other hand, if that infinite creative power is not there within the creation, what else is sustaining its existence?

So the infinite must enter—and remain infinite.

Reality, then, is a paradox. Two opposites must concur: The infinite creative force must be simultaneously both here and not-here.

We experience that dynamic as the phenomenon of time. Not metric, relative time, but the distinctly directional flow of time—a perpetual death and rebirth of the moment now, the sense of “what was is now gone, and now this is gone as well.” That is the ratzo v’shov—running and returning—that articulates one moment from the next. At its essence, then, time is a manifestation of the paradox of concomitant being and not-being.1

This dynamic is also what distinguishes one point in space from another, and any individual creation from any other. The uniqueness of each thing derives from its unique articulation of ratzo v’shov, its particular relationship with the infinite. The oscillation is deliberate, with varied articulation, and thus the multifariousness of the creation. Each created being and each event is the result of a set of particular articulations of that oscillation between being and not-being. Each of those articulations is represented by a Hebrew letter, twenty-two in total.

Vibration, it turns out, is the paradox of reality in action.

Vibration, it turns out, is the paradox of reality in action.

The Cosmic Symphony

Perek Shirah is a wonderful and wondrous ancient work, likely pre-dating the Mishnah, and attributed by some to King David,2 or King David and his son, King Solomon.3 It describes the songs sung by the sun, the moon, the earth, the waves of the sea, the trees, lions, chickens, dogs, frogs and many other critters. Each critter, it seems, hums a different tune.

But it’s more than that. From the way this song is explained, it seems that it’s not just that the critter hums. The critter is the hum. No hum, no critter.4

The notes of each being’s song are encoded in the name it is called in Hebrew, the language of creation.5 Not a word as we know words, but a manifestation of a divine creative thought. As each thought of G‑d oscillates between being and not-being, selfhood and reabsorption within its source, each according to its part in the Grand Symphony of creation, so it vibrates and sings its unique melody of praise to its Creator. Those letters of a creation’s name, they are the resonance tones of its vibration, constantly sustaining its existence.

The trees sing their song, the grass sings its, the carrots sing another; the frogs, the dogs, the hippopotamus and the Sasquatch. Every cell, every element, every particle has its song in which it is united with all of its species, harmonized with all the universe, and perfectly bonded with the Infinite Light from which it is generated. When that vital light amplifies its signal, the song is magnified and that creature is full of life. Should the signal decrease, the creature winds itself down.

And if its song would be silenced for a moment, in a nanoblink a phenomenon once embedded in our reality would fall from existence into the utter void, to become a non-being that never was. The very memory of it would cease to be, for the song is beyond time, and generates all of time, present, future and past.

It would be as though we had removed the code for an object from the program, and ran the code again. It never was.

There seems to be some correspondence here between a very old Kabbalistic idea and the strongest competitor for the unified field theory.

Maybe I’m the only one seeing this, but there seems to be some correspondence here between a very old Kabbalistic idea (which, as we noted earlier, is well-grounded in the Genesis narrative) and the strongest competitor for the unified field theory. It even explains why these vibrating entities are fundamental to existence—because the otiyot, to generate a finite reality, must be in a constant state of oscillation between finite being and annihilation within the infinite.

Of course, there are also vast differences. Strings are not observable because we don’t have anything small enough to bounce off of them, because they are one-dimensional, and because their vibrations are in multiple dimensions that are also too small for us to observe. The oscillating otiyot are not observable because they do not exist within time and space—they are that which generate time and space. String theory is derived through ingenious mathematical formulas, supported by observation of physical law. Otiyot are known to us through prophetic tradition and divinely inspired intuition.

Nevertheless, I hold hopes that in my own lifetime the two paths of the maze will meet for us.6

Practically Speaking: Oscillating Through Life

With each entry in this series, we need to have a practical application. Kabbalah, after all, is about life, so everything in Kabbalah has a practical application in everyday life. In this case, there’s a pretty clear one:

Just like the otiyot oscillate between existence and nonexistence, so too the lives of each of us.

Are you a something, or a nothing, or both?

Are you a something, or a nothing? If you’re thinking you are a well-defined something, you’re losing out on life. Life is about being open to everything that’s greater and bigger than you. Once you’ve decided, “I am something, and this is what I am”—you’ve shut off growth, new experience and, well, just life.

But then, if you are a nothing, what’s the point of being anything?

Or, as Hillel the Elder stated the classic conundrum:

If I am not for myself,
     then who will be for me?

And if I am for myself,
     then what am I?

And if not now, when?7

Don’t worry. As we explained, it’s not just you. This is how each thing in the universe exists—it has to both be and not-be, at every moment. That’s why each thing breathes, pumps, oscillates, fluctuates, vibrates, sings, swings and flutters—everything continually traverses back and forth between positive and negative, matter and energy, pattern and chaos, being and not-being, giving and getting, standing up for who you are and sitting down to learn from others. Nothing stands still; nothing just is.

The only thing that just is in this world, now and forever, is purpose. Each of us has a magnificent purpose in being here. Each of us is capable of bringing out the wonder of this creation in some way that no other being can. That purpose is our song, the hum that sustains us, our true essence and being.

And it’s in that purpose that our conundrum is resolved: Don’t be a nothing, and don’t either be a something. Be a something only because your purpose is everything.

Which is why Hillel finished with those words, realizing he is here for a purpose, and asking, “If not now, when?”

See Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, Derech Mitzvotecha, Mitzvat Ha’amanat Elokut, chapter 1.
Rabbi Moses of Trani, Beit Elokim.
Rabbi Elijah Deitz, Pi Eliyahu.
See Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Torah Ohr, Hosafot Ki Tisa 113a; idem, Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 1c; Rabbi Dov Ber of Lubavitch, Torat Chayim, Bereishit 33d ff; and many other places throughout Chabad literature.
See Tanya, Shaar HaYichud VehaEmunah, chs. 2 and 11–12.
In his book The End of Science, John Horgan quotes John Wheeler as saying that Kurt Gödel believed that the ultimate answer might already have been discovered and was lying somewhere among the papers of Gottfried Leibniz, the 17th-century German polymath. Leibniz actually did propose an alternative model of the fundamental particle, the monad. Suspiciously, it bears a striking resemblance to the otiyot described here. A recent study by Allison Coudert of Leibniz’s correspondence reveals his familiarity and fascination with the Kabbalah (Leibniz and the Kabbalah, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1995).
Avot 1:14.
Rabbi Tzvi Freeman, a senior editor at, also heads our Ask The Rabbi team. He is the author of Bringing Heaven Down to Earth. To subscribe to regular updates of Rabbi Freeman's writing, visit Freeman Files subscription. FaceBook @RabbiTzviFreeman Periscope @Tzvi_Freeman .
© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with's copyright policy.
Join the discussion
1000 characters remaining
Email me when new comments are posted.
Sort By:
Discussion (33)
February 28, 2016
All your theories aside Einstein attempted to unify theories his words he did not have a full grasp of. Taking in string theory as well as multiple worlds theory we have forgot a basic principal of science. We have not even figured out assentily what frequency our own universe vibrates at. Yet I am close and have been working diligently for years to figure this out.Yet haters gonna hate and not do crap to help besides complain. If you can help much would be appreciated if not then be gone.
July 16, 2015
Barry in Tuscon, AR: Mem is for metamorphosis
as the writer of the comment below about Vedanta, i feel i must apologize for unintentionally misleading anybody with any notions that numerology, buddhism or hindu cosmology has any realistic kinship with the cosmic movement of the living flame hebrew letters in the context of kabbalistic unfoldment. If we as humans, anthropomorgize the cosmic creative abilities of G-d or G-dliness, we are guilty of trumpeting our own egoic consciousness & forgetting the necessary meditation on humility that, certainly at the cosmic level of consciousness, must prevail.

We are not talking just about this mickey mouse universe where nearly everything is commodified. What was bi-polar or contradictory about the creation of the universe or the creation of Adam?. Pleez, might you consider Aaron Raskin's book "Letters of Light". & his many excellent videos about each hebrew letter; .. even though there are multiple meanings to a letter value, per se, they don't divide or subtract in a multi-universe.
July 15, 2015
Each Hebrew letter perhaps is bipolar
In all the books and treaties on the holiness of the Hebrew letters, a single meaning is ascribed to each. For example, Mem is associated with nourishment or sustenance, but might this only capture its "plus" pole. Perhaps at its "minus" pole, Mem resonates with the energy associated with suffocation or starvation. Similarly, Tav represents both the end and also a new beginning; Tzadeh can imply either constriction or freedom, or paradoxically both at the same time. It is interesting to consider the energy-names of the cast of Genesis through this bi-polar lens. It helps explain their at-times contradictory natures.
Barry Kibel
May 9, 2015
After Theo
re: Vendanta (Hindu) philosophy.

Recently i heard Dr. Robert Thurman discussing his idea of how the numerical zero is actually, according to the hindu cosmology, a 'space of substantical plasticity'. As if it was a pause, or if taken to the musical metaphor, a rest before a movement (minor or major key);
I think his idea was to bring mindful awareness to the "zero state", in order to nudge the human vehicle to let go of fear -- there (in that pause);

... so not a nothing, always a something.

thereby admitting a language "barrier" or mistranslation between the english words: nothing and emptiness.
Standing on one leg @ the spelling B
Where sheep may safely graze
December 20, 2014
like i am typing , but not typing. breathing and not breathing. night and day. asleep and awake. full and hungry. deppressed and euphoric. dead and alive. all never changing - purpose...
tx, usa
August 4, 2013
Hamid in London
Hamid, odd because I woke up one morning a few years ago with this very loud thought in my head that said "String Theory." All I could think is that I must of been dreaming but I never wake up with such a loud thought in my head like that, nor could I recall ever learning about the subject of String Theory before, unless I forgot and had read something in my travels which then got lodged in my sub-conscious. But to wake-up with such a strong thought in my head was a first for me! I think that is why I am here reading this article now, ever since that happened to me my radar has been up for this topic, haha!
August 4, 2013
This really makes me think about what a 'miracle' it is we are alive, here and now, in the moment- by moment-by moment, etc,, Maybe this is kind of how we felt when we were very young (full of life) but don't/can't remember it as we age? But then I think this can't be, because babies cry. So, not sure what to think exactly, but what you wrote here does make me think- and is fascinating nonetheless.
July 1, 2013
The creation story states He SPOKE and the universe was created. Are His Spoken Words(sound) a metaphor of these vibrating strings?
May 29, 2013
So there is such thing as a sasquatch?
April 14, 2013
all your essays
i find them fascinating and so i am printing them and putting them in a folder so that i can peruse them again and again.