Guessing is the devils work gamby, I need you to put the work in or you're off my 2014 Nobel prize winners squad.
Where I do agree, it is feasible that some new understanding at the sub-atomic level could redefine us to the point of a potentially disturbing paradigm shift. Most of what we know about the most fundamental level can only be defined in Mathematics, however when that maths is applied it works to the extent that many of our daily obects (creams, lubricants etc) also work because of it; this is also based on reliable assumptions.
"sound waves" is a name we gave to a particular molecular behaviour in the air. It exists and can be measured. But does it make a sound in of itself? Or, is it only our interpretation of that molecular behaviour we perceive as sound?
What you "hear" is an interpretation of a molecular behaviour by your inner ear and brain. You, me, or anyone else, have no way of knowing that "sound" is a "noise" outside of our own perception. Or are you suggesting that molecules banging together at a frequency we would call a "sound wave" makes a noise all of it's own? Now, time. That is an interesting one. Time is measurable but only by an abstract concept mankind applied because it was handy to say meet ye at Coocaddens 7:30pm. Do other animals have a concept of time? Is time an energy that could be physically measured (as opposed to abstract measurement such as days, hours, minutes, etc) and therefore manipulated? Excellent questions worthy of discussion.
maybe your question should be "what is sound" not, "does it exist" A fair point. Which is exactly what hypothetical questions such as "the tree in the forest" are designed to promote and explore.
I do think it's likely that we may redefine colour, sound etc -much of what was taught in Secondary schools 20/25+ years ago was fundamentally inaccurate
