Can Infrasound Explain Ghostly Apparitions?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Ghosts Uk
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential relationship between infrasound and ghostly apparitions, exploring whether infrasound could explain experiences commonly attributed to paranormal phenomena. Participants share personal experiences, hypotheses, and seek scientific literature related to infrasound and its effects on human perception.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • Vic Tandy's experience suggests that infrasound at 18.9 Hz may cause visual distortions, leading to perceptions of ghostly figures.
  • One participant is constructing a low-frequency sound source to test the effects of infrasound on themselves, expressing interest in the topic and questioning the validity of various claims about infrasound effects.
  • Another participant shares a link to a study on infrasound's effects on humans, indicating a lack of comprehensive research on the topic.
  • There are mentions of infrasound produced by animals, such as elephants and sperm whales, and anecdotal accounts of its effects on humans.
  • Concerns are raised about the availability of scientific studies on infrasound, with some participants noting difficulties in finding credible sources or research supporting Tandy's findings.
  • One participant proposes a low-tech method for generating infrasound, suggesting the use of a large pipe and mechanical means to create resonant frequencies.
  • There is speculation that military applications of infrasound may have led to the classification of some research, complicating access to relevant studies.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express interest in the infrasound theory, but there is no consensus on its validity or the extent of its effects. Multiple competing views and uncertainties about the scientific basis of the claims remain evident throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the difficulty in finding reliable studies on infrasound and its effects, highlighting a potential gap in the literature. There are also references to anecdotal experiences and claims that may not be substantiated by rigorous scientific research.

  • #91
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Since Tandy's argument is so earthly I would expect journals like Nature, Science, and even Physics Today to jump all over this...unless it is not worthy of publication...
This is just plain uncharitable and mean.

Tandy is a guy with a very interesting theory. He knows enough about accoustics to explain his reasoning, but he is not an expert in acoustics. He has not conducted and published a formal scientific study of this phenoenon. This is a side thing to his real profession that happened to get a lot of press. Nature, Science, and Physics Today would not jump to solicite material from a non-expert with an interesting theory about a subject like "hauntings" despite having no particular objections to it, now would they?

For the record I will clearly state that I do not think the kind of "haunting" experience Tandy experienced and described has anything to do with the "haunting" you and Tsunami experienced. Your experience was signifigantly different by virtue of the olfactory element, and the sensation of weight on the foot of the bed, to name two things that have never been proposed as a part of the infrasound kind of "haunting".

I say that in case you, Tsunami, and Evo are thinking I'm interested in Tandy in an attempt to explain your experience "away", which I'm not. Honest to God, I have no leads to what happened to you beyond the hoax by building caretaker possibility I speculated about.

Edited to add: to the extent that Tandy could explain what had happened to people like the very upset cleaning lady who was quite frightened by her experience, and anyone else who has been caught unawares by an infrasound "ghost' in a creepy place, he is doing a good thing. Shut the fan off: ghost disappears; an illusion. No worries. Why should people suffer anxiety over something stupid like a wobbling fan?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
This is just plain uncharitable and mean.

I don't think so. In science we require something called peer review. He has published his work. It only appears in one journal put out by the Psychical Research Society. This along with the weakness of his claims pretty much settles this for me for now. Perhaps one day he or others will gather enough supporting evidence to justify his claims. In the mean time it seems that he is selling books and soon, ghost machines. Hmmm.
 
  • #93
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I don't think so.
I think so. Your "...unless it is not worthy of publication..." line is pure editorial on your part, and is intended to create the impression this is the only possible reason he hasn't been written about in those magazines.
In science we require something called peer review.
I don't see where Tandy has tried to resist any peer review.
He has published his work.It only appears in one journal put out by the Psychical Research Society.

So, he has submitted a piece to a journal he felt would be interested. They published it, and...where's the problem?
This along with the weakness of his claims pretty much settles this for me for now.
"The weakness of his claims..." again, is you editorializing. They don't look weak to me at all. I think he has made an excellent case. You yourself were impressed enough to be in the process of making your own infrasound generator when this thread began.
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
I think so. Your "...unless it is not worthy of publication..." line is pure editorial on your part, and is intended to create the impression this is the only possible reason he hasn't been written about in those magazines.

It was intended to convey my take on the evidence presented. The more I learn and think about this the more dubious I am of his claim. I wasn't trying to be subtle.

I don't see where Tandy has tried to resist any peer review.
So, he has submitted a piece to a journal he felt would be interested. They published it, and...where's the problem?

Mainstream journals are the proper channel for publishing a theory; not the internet, books, and fringe journals. Since I have seen none mentioned, I must assume that either he avoids a qualified review of his claims, he awaits publication while his work is reviewed, or he can't get published because his claims lack sufficient supporting evidence. Similar public maneuvers by two gents named Ponds and Fleishmann led to the cold fusion fiasco of the late 80's. They were so discredited by this breach of protocol that they effectively went into hiding. The same rules apply to Hawking, Tandy, me, and anyone else who makes public claims such as Tandy's. Is this science or not?


"The weakness of his claims..." again, is you editorializing. They don't look weak to me at all. I think he has made an excellent case. You yourself were impressed enough to be in the process of making your own infrasound generator when this thread began.

Even you agreed that his unique 18.9 Hz dependency for eye resonance seems to fail. Since this was his key test for apparitions - specifically at 18.9 Hz - his most basic claim falls apart. Also, I don't think I am being mean spirited just because we don't agree. I am highly dubious about this whole business by Tandy. I am still allowing that eventually he might prevail but for the moment I just don't see it. As I said from the start, the wave intensities required for the desired effects appear to far exceed levels that would otherwise go unnoticed; even as infrasound.
 
  • #95
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Mainstream journals are the proper channel for publishing a theory; not the internet, books, and fringe journals. Since I have seen none mentioned, I must assume that either he avoids a qualified review of his claims, he awaits publication while his work is reviewed, or he can't get published because his claims lack sufficient supporting evidence.

This is where you are being uncharitable. As I tried to point out before, he is just a guy with an interesting theory which is well outside his own actual profession. He has a certain amount of evidence to show, but he has not conducted a formal study that he could write up nd present to any hard science journals. He presents nothing at the level of a "claim". What he has could be called a "theory" at the very best.

"Infrasound + spooky place = "haunting" is a notion that is almost certainly of so little interest to mainstream science that the reaction is not that it lacks credibiity, but that it evokes a response of "Could be, I suppose. So what?"

Infrasound, from the nature of the studies presented, is of interest to people concerned with occupaional safety. These people have no interest in whether or not it might have this pseudo-paranormal effect in old dungeons. The only people who have any real concern are paranormal believers and skeptics.

I am not aware if he has submitted anything to any hard science journals and been rejected but if he's has I would say it is either because he didn't conduct a formal study under specific conditions that people could recreate and test, or, it was because none of them deemed the subject to be particularly important.
Similar public maneuvers by two gents named Ponds and Fleishmann led to the cold fusion fiasco of the late 80's. They were so discredited by this breach of protocol that they effectively went into hiding.
The cold fusion guys were not discredited because they did not publish in the proper journals, Ivan. They did go through the peer review process and were discredited because no one could replicate their results. Someone who tried, who had read their material, figured out the mistake they had made. Breach of protocol was not the offense that discredited them, it was the fact their claims were plain wrong.

Cold fusion, also, was important.
Even you agreed that his unique 18.9 Hz dependency for eye resonance seems to fail. Since this was his key test for apparitions - specifically at 18.9 Hz - his most basic claim falls apart.

First off the 18.9 hz did not fail. He discovered that frequency in his workshop. Apparently it works, according to what he read in the NASA paper. The difference is that the other papers for which we found abstracts and from which we have second hand quotes, maintain that the eyes can be affected by many frequencies in the infrasonic range. This doesn't debunk Tandy at all. It increases the range of infrasound at which his theory might be accurate.
Also, I don't think I am being mean spirited just because we don't agree.
I don't either. Normally you are charitable in all disagreements with me and others. I found that one post to be an exception.
I am highly dubious about this whole business by Tandy. I am still allowing that eventually he might prevail but for the moment I just don't see it. As I said from the start, the wave intensities required for the desired effects appear to far exceed levels that would otherwise go unnoticed; even as infrasound.
Your impression of the wave intensities required come from the abstracts and brief quotes from papers none of us has read. The studies seem to disagree with each other (par for the course), and I suspect this is due to the fact that each was conducted under different circumstances for very different reasons and motivations. None studied the effects of infrasound as produced by improperly mounted industrial exhaust fans in shops of the size and construction in which Tandy had his experience.
 
  • #96
Ivan:
===
"Infrasound + spooky place = "haunting" is a notion that is almost certainly of so little interest to mainstream science that the reaction is not that it lacks credibiity, but that it evokes a response of "Could be, I suppose. So what?"
===

I'm afriad you're right--but even worse, what's the chance of getting 'funded' if you even mention 'ghosts' or 'UFOs'...

One of my favorite 'science' stories is about the 'French Academy of Science' declaring 'rocks don't fall from the sky'---