Can Infrasound Explain Ghostly Apparitions?

  • Thread starter zoobyshoe
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ghosts Uk
In summary, a computer expert named Vic Tandy debunked a ghost sighting in a haunted laboratory in Warwick, England by discovering that the ghostly figure was caused by infrasound waves vibrating a fencing foil in the lab. He later tested for infrasound in a famous haunted cellar and found similar results. Tandy's research has sparked interest in the effects of infrasound on humans and has led to further exploration and experimentation.
  • #71
I found the abstracts for 19800007533 and 19730008358.

Do you have any idea where to find abstracts for the other two?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
This paper here:

Address:http://users.iafrica.com/s/sa/salbu/apollo/HumA2.html

says that Tandy got his info from more sources than just the NASA paper and quotes what these other sources say about the effect of infrasound on the eye.

It also explains, Ivan, how Tandy experimented to find the spot in the room where the standing wave was strongest. With a wave this large being at the node would be quite a different experience than being at an anti-node. Tandy found a very different reaction in his foil depending on where he put it in the room. He, too, thought the decibel level would be too low, but reconsidered when he took the size of the fan and motor into account.
 
  • #73
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
and quotes what these other sources say about the effect of infrasound on the eye.
Can you pull these out of that person's website you list and show them? I don't see anything except supposition.
 
  • #74
Interesting info about pipe organ that produces infrasound:World's Largest Organ, Atlantic City, NJ
Address:http://theatreorgans.com/atlcity/index2.htm

"the largest pipe in the organ, and also the largest organ pipe in the world, is the low "C" of the 64 foot diaphone profunda. The pipe is 64 feet nine inches long, ten inches square at the base, and 36 inches square at the top..." "...Since low "C" vibrates only eight cycles per second the tone is felt rather than heard but nevertheless it supplies a strong foundation for the entire pedal organ division."
 
  • #75
Originally posted by Evo
Can you pull these out of that person's website you list and show them? I don't see anything except supposition.
"In any case, the symptoms listed by Temple (1976) for low frequency sound waves are; Severe middle ear pain (not experienced), persistent eye watering, and respiratory difficulties, sensations of fear including excessive perspiration and shivering." "Table IV on page 212 of this book shows frequencies causing disturbance to the eyes and vision to be within the band 12 to 27 Hz. A more recent book by Kroemer (1994) describes the effects of low frequency vibration as follows;
'Vibration of the body mostly affects the principal input ports, the eyes, and principal output means, hands and mouth.'(p. 287)." "Tables 5-12 of Kroemer (1994) on p. 288, indicate that the resonant frequencies of body parts are; Head (2-20 Hz causing general discomfort), Eyeballs (1-100Hz mostly above 8 Hz and strongly 20-70Hz effect difficulty in seeing). However, different sources give different resonant frequencies for the eye itself."
_
 
  • #76
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
"In any case, the symptoms listed by Temple (1976) for low frequency sound waves are; Severe middle ear pain (not experienced), persistent eye watering, and respiratory difficulties, sensations of fear including excessive perspiration and shivering."
A statement without the facts to back it up means nothing. At what levels were these effects observed at? From the 2003 UK government study I found below, apparently it takes a rather high level and even then the effects are not enough to be considered significant. Tests done by Tempest only showed effects on 30% of his test subjects suffered nystagmus with no mention of vision impairment while another noted test done by Johnson showed no cases of nystagmus. (zooby, the term nystagmus is used here in relation to involuntary eye movements caused by infrasound)

In all of the research, vision impairment doesn’t appear to be a symptom that is considered related to infrasound, even with “vibrations” taken into consideration, since the “vibrations” are so insignificant.

The study is titled “A review of published research on low frequency noise and it’s effects”

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/noise/lowfrequency/pdf/lowfreqnoise.pdf

On page 8, paragraph 2.6 Infrasound - it says “Much of what has been written about infrasound in the press and in popular books is grossly misleading and should be discounted.”

See page 25, paragraph 7.2 through page 27 paragraph 7.2.2 on body vibrations.

Also page 55, paragraph 13.3 Biological effects on humans: In the numerous published studies there is little or no agreement about the biological activity following exposure to infrasound.

Page 56 – “To study vestibular effects in humans, both a rail balancing task and direct nystagmus (involuntary eye movements) measurement have been used.”

“However Evans (Evans & Tempest 1972) examining the effect of infrasonic environments on human behavior found that 30% of normal subjects exposed to tones of 2-10 Hz had nystagmus within 60 seconds of exposure to 120db signal, with 7 Hz being most effective in causing it. Higher intensities resulted in faster onset of nystagmus, but there were no complaints of discomfort from any of the subjects at any SPL.”
“Subsequently Johnson (Johnson, 1975) who investigated nystagmus in many experiments under different conditions with aural infrasound stimulations from 142 to 155db had negative results.”

After looking at all of the various research, I have to conclude, for now, that Tandy jumped to a conclusion without any substantial or conclusive evidence. That’s my take on it, you may see it differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
Originally posted by Evo
After looking at all of the various research, I have to conclude, for now, that Tandy jumped to a conclusion without any substantial or conclusive evidence. That’s my take on it, you may see it differently.

Originally posted by Evo
I believe he is sincere in his belief, but I don't think this is the answer we're looking for to explain "hauntings".
So, I'm getting the distinct feeling you, or someone you know has had a "haunting"?
 
  • #78
And to reiterate:

"The involuntary eye movements of nystagmus are caused by abnormal functions in the areas of the brain that control eye mevements"

from this:

MEDLINEplus Medical Encyclopedia: Eye movements - uncontrollable
Address:http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003037.htm
Mechanical vibrations of the eye cannot accurately be referred to as "nystagmus".
 
  • #79
zooby, the documents that Tandy said he used are the ones using the term nystagmus in reference to the vibration of the eyeball. Are you disputing Tandy's references then? See the research done by Tempest, he's the only one that has documented nystagmus as an effect of ultrasound, but mostly at 7Hz, not 19Hz. This is one of Tandy's sources that you listed.
 
  • #80
Originally posted by Evo
zooby, the documents that Tandy said he used are the ones using the term nystagmus in reference to the vibration of the eyeball.
The distinction has to be maintained between involuntary eye movements that may be suspected to be caused by infrasound affecting the brain's motore control of the eyes, and a different, purely mechanical, direct vibration of the eyeball by infrasound with no involement of the brain or nervous system or eye muscles. These are two separate phenmomena.

Finding that infrasound does not cause nystagmus implies that it is a much safer thing to be exposed to than if it is thought to be affecting people brains. You see? This is an important thing to find out because of various industrial situations where people would be exposed to infrasound. Is this exposure safe? "Mere" mechanical vibrations of the eyeball would not involve the brain or nervous system, and would not be considered so dangerous, (and could also not correctly be referred to as "nystagmus"). People performing studies to "clear" infrasound of causing nystagmus among other health risks, are not automatically also clearing it of direct mechanical vibration of the eyeballs.
__________________________

So, Evo, ever seen a ghost?
 
  • #81
Here are my impressions so far.

So far I think that Evo has shown that any specific frequency dependence for mechanical oscillations of the eye is doubtful.

Next, the numbers mentioned indicate that the wave intensity required to cause physical effects are well into levels that would cause loss of hearing. I would also expect that waves of this intensity could be felt throughout the body. Again, this makes me question the wave intensities required in order to produce any significant physical effects.

Also, how could a person's eye be vibrating but with only subtle effects? I would expect that given eye rattling one's vision would be generally affected as with Megashawn's experience.

Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpses of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.
 
Last edited:
  • #82
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
So, Evo, ever seen a ghost?
I saw a cat that wasn't there. But since I'm not convinced that anything exists afer we die, I wouldn't call it a ghost. I don't believe that people that see "ghosts" are seeing the dead walking around. But I do believe that there may be a natural explanation for a lot of the reported "apparitions" or whatever you want to call them. They've been reported by too many credible people over the years to be discounted.
 
  • #83
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpse of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked, nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.
Too funny!
 
  • #84
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
So far I think that Evo has shown that any specific frequency dependence for mechanical oscillations of the eye is doubtful.
The brief and incomplete things we've actually been able to read do indicate that the eye responds to a large portion of the infrasound spectrum, yes.
Next, the numbers mentioned indicate that the wave intensity required to cause physical effects are well into levels that would cause loss of hearing.
It isn't at all clear to me what effect infrasound has on hearing.
If the frequencies of infrasound are outside the range of frequencies that the eardrum responds to high decibel levels of infrasound may be imaterial.
I would also expect that waves of this intensity could be felt throughout the body. Again, this makes me question the wave intensities required in order to produce any significant physical effects.
This would be where the standing wave aspect of it would come into play: a wave of insufficient intensity in and of itself that is reflected back on itself would result in spots where the anti-nodes combine and produce areas of double the intensity. Recall how Tandy located one spot in the shop where the effect was vastly more pronounced. If the original source of the sound was intense enough by itself he would have found the effect anywhere in the shop. Instead, he only found one spot. This indicates a standing wave situation.
Also, how could a person's eye be
vibrating but with only subtle effects? I would expect that given eye rattling one's vision would be generally affected as with Megashawn's experience.
I'm not sure what you're doubtful about here. The intensity of the vibration of the eye would correspond to the intensity of the amplitude of the sound. The greater the amplitude of the eye vibration, the greater the disturbance of vision. Megashawn was inside a small chamber with a really high amplitude sound.
Finally, I had a ghostly episode two nights ago and as discussed here. I was sitting here working and I kept getting glimpses of a gray, blurry image in my right eye's peripheral vision. when I turned and looked nothing was there. First I thought infrasound, and then I thought temporal lobe seizure, and then I realized the real culprit - a mouse. It really had me going for a couple of minutes.
Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)
 
Last edited:
  • #85
could have been my doppelganger--been very interested in this
 
  • #86
Originally posted by zoobyshoe
Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)
ROFLMAO!
 
  • #87
I found this much more detailed article by Tandy in which he explains his experiences and reasoning about them as he goes along, and also goes into thorough detail about the aspect of standing waves:

Live Sound International | Ghost Story: Phantoms, Vibrations and Standing Waves
Address:http://www.livesoundint.com/archives/2002/janfeb/low/low.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
It isn't at all clear to me what effect infrasound has on hearing.
If the frequencies of infrasound are outside the range of frequencies that the eardrum responds to high decibel levels of infrasound may be imaterial.

The damage to the ear is a function of ambient pressure changes relative to the inner ear. The ear is more responsive to higher frequencies, but the large pressure changes due to the passing of a high intensity sound or infrasound wave is what damages the ear. Sound, as opposed to infrasound, is really just a matter of perception. Some of the links given already state that infrasound causes loss of hearing but at somewhat higher levels than mid range sound.


This would be where the standing wave aspect of it would come into play: a wave of insufficient intensity in and of itself that is reflected back on itself would result in spots where the anti-nodes combine and produce areas of double the intensity. Recall how Tandy located one spot in the shop where the effect was vastly more pronounced. If the original source of the sound was intense enough by itself he would have found the effect anywhere in the shop. Instead, he only found one spot. This indicates a standing wave situation.

This changes nothing. The standing wave only acts to amplify the overall intensity of the primary at a point. The intensity at a point [the observer] is what matters. According to the links posted, a person should feel the infrasound if the decibel levels are high enough to induce other effects.

I'm not sure what you're doubtful about here. The intensity of the vibration of the eye would correspond to the intensity of the amplitude of the sound. The greater the amplitude of the eye vibration, the greater the disturbance of vision. Megashawn was inside a small chamber with a really high amplitude sound.

Why would his vision only be blurred in the peripheral field? I would expect all vision to be affected…especially in a lab where people usually are found reading text and instruments.

Little did you realize that it was the ghost of a mouse who died during a temporal lobe seizure and which was producing infrasound. (Did you find any mouse ghost "ectoplasm? Mouse ghosts are known to leave "ectoplasm" behind in the form of small, dark, oblong "pellets".)

If I see any glowing mouse poop I will post an attachment.

You know, before you came along, when I saw something out of the corner of my eye I thought "mouse", or "cat", or "wind", but now I think temporal lobe seizure!
 
  • #89
One more objection...

As yet I haven't seen one main stream scientific journal that has published Tandy's argument. The Psychical Society [published one paper] may or may not be respectable but they are clearly not in the mainstream. 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...
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Some of the links given already state that infrasound causes loss of hearing but at somewhat higher levels than mid range sound.
Deafness by exposure to high levels of sound is cumulative and happens over time according to the level you are exposed to. Since the level of infrasound that can damage hearing is "somewhat higher" than mid range sound, then my guess would be that he level in the cases Tandy speaks about were high enough to cause the hyperventilation, anxiety, and blurred vision, but not high enough to compromise hearing. On the other hand I don't expect that anyone has had the thought to have the hearing of the workers at he various industrial "haunting" sites checked to see if it is less than normal.
According to the links posted, a person should feel the infrasound if the decibel levels are high enough to induce other effects.
This physical feeling you seek is what the hyperventilation and anxiety are about, isn't it? I don't see why you would expect the same kind of sensation one gets standing next to a big speaker basting in the audible range.
Why would his vision only be blurred in the peripheral field?
He is feeling intense anxiety, he is hyperventilating, his eyeballs are being vibrated: I would venture to guess his periferal vision was more affected because his eyes were watering, an effect mentioned in one of the papers.
I would expect all vision to be affected…especially in a lab where people usually are found reading text and instruments.
Recall that Tandy's desk was located right next to the spot of greatest intensity. The other people only passed through that spot occasionally.
You know, before you came along, when I saw something out of the corner of my eye I thought "mouse", or "cat", or "wind", but now I think temporal lobe seizure!
My continued attempts to disseminate information about simple partial seizures, which is motivated by the desire to assure anyone who might be having a lot of them in silent bewilderment, that they are not crazy or the victim of some paranormal evil force, seems to continually backfire on me, yes. Rest assured that I have never intended to put you on edge.
 
Last edited:
  • #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 intersting 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:
  • #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'---
 
Back
Top