The entire idea of science is to look at a process, come up with a hypothesis that could explain it, and to then test the hypothesis via experimentation.

these scientists have come up with a hyposthesis and presumably will try to test it. it is an interesting idea, and understanding it requires knowledge of the biochemistry and biophysics of membranes, and the physics of sound in microscopic conditions. it may be hard to do the experiments. it may be impossible to produce evidence. but if they can accumulate data to support their hyposthesis, the burden of evidence will lead other scientists to use the idea as a reasonable explanation.

the number of people who laughed at this hypothesis in the preceeding comments is concerning. to ridicule a new idea is not part of the scientific process. it is at least bad playground behavior. worse, it turns knowledge into faith, an unassailable wall that stifles intellectual curiosity and creative thinking. history is filled with examples of how badly that turns out. if you don't think an idea is correct you should do the experiments to disprove it, or wait for the proponent to give evidence. in fact, you should do the same thing if you believe in the idea. it is the only way that science can move forward. remember einstein and quantum mechanics. the burder of evidence gives us an approximation of the truth, and every scientific idea is testable, by definition.