Has infrasound been used to image the human body?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the potential use of infrasound to image the human body, exploring the feasibility and implications of using ultra-low frequency sound waves for medical imaging. Participants examine the interaction of acoustic waves with biological tissues and the limitations of infrasound compared to ultrasound.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the possibility of using infrasound to scan humans, suggesting that ultra-low frequencies may not effectively image the body's complex structures.
  • One participant explains that acoustic waves interact with objects of similar size, noting that infrasound (e.g., 10 Hz) would not provide the resolution needed for imaging human tissues compared to ultrasound (e.g., 10 MHz).
  • Another participant mentions that the human body resonates at frequencies higher than those of infrasound used by larger animals, suggesting potential applications in communication or brain feedback rather than direct imaging.
  • It is argued that infrasound would not yield detailed images of small structures like lungs, as it would provide limited data points compared to ultrasound, which can capture multiple data points for a more comprehensive image.
  • One participant points out that while humans can respond to infrasound, the experience is often unpleasant.
  • A different perspective is introduced, questioning why human organs should be the standard for comparison, noting that other species utilize sound for imaging at different frequency ranges.
  • A reference to historical events is made, suggesting a connection between infrasound and phenomena experienced in Fatima in 1917.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness of infrasound for imaging the human body, with no consensus reached regarding its feasibility or applications. Some argue against its use for detailed imaging, while others propose alternative perspectives on sound perception across species.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the complexity of the human body's structure, the dependence on frequency ranges for effective imaging, and the unresolved nature of how infrasound might interact with various biological tissues.

Loren Booda
Messages
3,115
Reaction score
4
Is it possible to scan humans with ultra low frequencies to study medically one's physique?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
one aspect of acoustic waves is that they tend to interact with things on the same order of magnitude of size as them. Infrasonic wave, say 10 Hz, at the speed of sound (340 m/s) are:

340(m/s)/10(1/s) = 34 m

The reason ultrasound (at around 10MHz) works so well is because:

340/10,000,000 = 35 um (that's micrometers) so it can pickup the tissue structures that make up humans.
 
The human body resonates at a frequency greater than that for "elephant" or "whale" infrasound -- perhaps helpful with communication or even brain feedback, if not directly imaging.
 
Loren Booda said:
The human body resonates at a frequency greater than that for "elephant" or "whale" infrasound -- perhaps helpful with communication or even brain feedback, if not directly imaging.

It depends on what cavity you're referring to; the whole human body doesn't have some single natural frequency; it's a complex geometric object full of soft tissues, not a string. For wavelengths on the order of molecular and tissue structures, it's pretty much the same for both humans and elephants. You start talking about a stomach or a lung, of course, and it's a different story. But if you want to image a lung from either an elephant or a human, it will be ultrasound.

infrasound doesn't work for imaging small things:
Even if you've got an infrasonic acoustic wave the order of a lung to transmit and detect for backscatter, it wouldn't detail the lung like an ultrasound does. You'd essentially get one data point representing the lung. With ultrasound, you get several data points representing many pieces of the lung, so you can put an actual image together.
 
Why should humans (or more precisely human organs) alway be the standard? Bats use sound for 'imaging'. Dogs, birds also perceive higher frequencies than humans. What is infra-sonic to one species is ultra-sonic to another.
 
That wiki link may explain what happened in Fatima on 13th October 1917 in another thread in this section.
 

Similar threads

Does Radiation from X-Rays/CT Stay in Body Forever (Risks)?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
11K
Influenza A H5, an avian flu, first time in a human
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Medical How is blood volume calculated and measured in the human body?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Human Body and Frequency detection
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
Salt vs Sugar: Which is More Harmful to the Human Body?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Artificial gravity -- consequences for the human body
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
Medical Using Far-UVC Light To Kill Airborne Human Coronaviruses
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
Medical How nanotechnology has affected treatment of tuberculosis?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Human body growth in the absence of a brain
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
How human strength can increase without increased muscle size?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K