Home » Articles posted by Dr. Glen MacPherson

Author Archives: Dr. Glen MacPherson

Next Steps

For those of you who are new to Worldwide Hum Research, visit the main page at www.thehum.info so you can get up to speed on things.

Here’s where I think we are and what we need to do:

  1. The Hum Map and Database. I think the new and improved Hum Map is serving its purpose well and has been at the centre of media attention. I will continue to update the Map. I think it’s time for a statistician to start crunching the data, based on some things we know or are speculating on.
  2. The Media. Most of the major media outlets (and many smaller ones) have done reasonably serious pieces about the Hum. Unfortunately, there has been some awful science reporting as well, and of course, I can’t leave it unchallenged. I expect I’ll be doing a fair bit of correcting the record in 2019.
  3. Physical Experiments. I have given specific advice on what needs to be done, but nobody has done it. You can read about it here, here, here, and here. And there are more.
  4. University and other corporate labs. Essentially no progress has been made on this point. Occasionally a university scientist is asked for an opinion regarding so-called “Sky Trumpets” (most of which I solved this summer) or other “mystery noises”. I’ve made a few efforts to reach out to established experts in several fields, but nothing has resulted. Eventually, a famous or powerful person who hears the Worldwide Hum will provide the impetus we need to get this solved.
  5. Honing our skills and techniques for tracking down human sources of low-frequency sound and infrasound. There are two papers from Henrik on the main page at www.thehum.info that are paving the way for this.

Glen

A Bad Start to 2019

One of the main goals of this project is to raise awareness of the Worldwide Hum and to make it the subject of serious medical and scientific inquiry. We’ve had some tangible successes in that direction, but we’ve also experienced a number of setbacks. Scanning the news headlines this morning, The National Post – one of Canada’s national newspapers – reports “A strange, low-intensity hum near Vancouver Island may help predict when the next killer earthquake will strike. “

This was obviously an exciting headline. The writer of the article is Joseph Brean. I’m not interested in the various controversies and conflicts he is involved in, but rather his science reporting. After reading a few paragraphs, I realized that his grasp of basic science is about as weak as we’ve come to expect from major media outlets. One notable and very welcome exception to this is Nicole Mortillaro of CBC, who is the editor of the Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, among other accomplishments.

The research was reported in the journal Nature Geoscience. As interesting and potentially important as their study might be, it has absolutely nothing to do with the Worldwide Hum. This is roughly the same group of French researchers whose work was conflated with the Worldwide Hum in 2017. At the heart of the problem, again, is lazy translation. Check your favourite dictionary, and you’ll see that in every usage, the word “hum” refers to an audible sound. This is annoying because the French language has ample choices for expressing this or vibrations in general. The seismic vibrations reported by the researchers are far below the range of human hearing (both in frequency and power). There is no sound involved. Perhaps one of the researchers has basic English skills and was looking for a cute and catchy phrase that would appeal to lay readers.

Regular readers on this topic might say, “Wait a minute; didn’t you speculate that some sort of seismic or geological activity might be causing the Hum?”. Yes, I did, because there is some evidence from amateur British scientists who reported on audible events preceding earthquakes in England during the 1800s. But of course, that has nothing to do with the present French research, which makes no claims about audible sounds.

It is ironic that we have won some major battles against the lunacy and pseudoscience that used to be associated with the Hum, and now we work to undo the damage done by educated and serious people who are misreading and misinterpreting genuine science, on a different topic.

 

[UPDATED] I’ve found a primary source of the so-called “Sky Trumpets” noise. I inadvertently captured it on my phone in Russia (video)

UPDATE: I’ve heard this now in a number of places, including right near my condo when the big trucks are making their deliveries. It’s dismaying how easy this was to solve, and breathtaking how much massive media attention this has garnered. I’m calling this one solved, and I should probably move on from it.

Well, the word “found” is self-congratulatory – it was painfully easy to find with a few minutes of searching. What triggered this was that a few days ago I was being interviewed by a reporter who was curious about my thoughts on the so-called “sky trumpet” noises. I suddenly remembered that not only did I hear it myself, but I captured it on video (posted below). I had just arrived in Moscow, and I was at the Ismailovo Hotel complex (Beta Hotel). I was highly distracted (if not stressed) at the time because of a major paperwork problem (my apologies for the video – it is a private travel video and it caught me at a moment when I was in quite a predicament). At the time I made a mental note to comment on it later. In the video below, you can clearly hear it from about 0:03 through 0:10.

Sorry if I disappoint anyone, but it is a mechanical noise, caused by the brakes on large trucks travelling at lower speeds.  Large machinery, trains going around curves create similar sounds. Other mechanical sources can create similar sounds. This has been reported for years over the internet by professional mechanics and amateur enthusiasts alike. All the sensationalists and fabulists had to do was take 20 minutes and go find it. Here is a sample of the sound coming from a smaller truck. And here is another reference to the “blue whale” noise caused by malfunctioning brakes. This poster talks about a “dying whale” noise.  And another. And here. There are hundreds of references to it.

And of course, there may be other equally mundane causes of unusual noises, but the fundamental issue here is that tracking them down takes work and many people are in general lazy. So it’s the job of killjoys like me to dismantle the silliness. However, from what I now understand about psychology, education, sociology, and religion, there will always be a subset of people who will desperately and fiercely latch on to explanations that invoke the mysterious, the supernatural, and the conspiratorial. Some of them do this even when they should know better, such as the Science Education professor I knew at the University of Manitoba who believed in Velikovsky, or university graduates I know who believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and many other examples. As science continues to unveil how the universe works, these people don’t retreat, they simply bounce to the next magical and untestable claim, or the next exciting conspiracy.

CLICK HERE FOR MY VIDEO

 

 

 

The Updated Theoretical Logic Map for Investigating the Hum (from Henrik)

The earlier published logic map (Rev.7x) has been updated to Rev.8. See link below. The main change is, that the direct, or real-time, influence from electromagnetic fields has been discarded since no theoretical or empirical evidence has been found to support this possibility. Long-term electromagnetic radiation remains as a possible sensitizing factor together with many others. Additionally, some minor rewordings have been introduced.

This version still only represents Henrik’s thoughts on the subject, and does not constitute the official standpoint of the Project.

Click here for the Hum Logic Map

Two Important New Papers from Henrik

Henrik, one of our “scientists in residence” has written a long-awaited paper on tracking down external environmental noise using very basic tools. I will feature prominently on this blog and on the Hum Map website for the near future. I hope that this paper will not only help create a purer dataset for our project but will aid people who are suffering from nuisance, low-frequency noise that arises from classic anthropogenic sources.

The paper is written in two parts.

Read Part One here.

Read Part Two here.

The Hum Map has been updated

We’ve more than doubled the number of enhanced data points on the Hum Map and Database. Here is a direct link:http://thehum.info/newhum/#

Let me know if you see anything that warrants my attention.

I’ve returned from St. Petersburg, Russia. Here’s what I heard.

I heard the Worldwide Hum roughly four days after I arrived in Russia. It wasn’t as clear and distinct as it here on the Sunshine Coast in BC. The city of St. Petersburg is dense and highly populated, home to more than five million people. So it didn’t surprise me that my nighttime window for hearing the Hum was smaller than in my small town on the West Coast of Canada. Presumably, the cacophony generated by such a densely populated and busy city would only subside for a few hours during the wee hours of the night. My apartment was on Ulitsa Pravdy, in the downtown core and just a few hundred meters away from the intersection of two big metro lines. The Metro (subway) system starts up early, comprises more than 1400 cars and almost 200 trains moving fast and deep – in one case almost 300 feet beneath street level. The road traffic is fast, intense, and high volume. There is a rich and high volume audio spectrum, down into the infrasonic.

And now the anticipated answer to the question: What perceived frequency did I hear?

I’m sorry but I can’t answer that accurately. I opened up the online tone generator several times, but I couldn’t get a good match like I can here. I am quite confident that it is the same general range (i.e. low 50s Hz to mid-60s Hz).

I know this is disappointing because had I been able to get a good frequency match, it could have sorted out one issue: the electric grid. Russia has a 50 Hz grid, unlike North America, which uses 60 Hz. A difference in perceived Hum tone would have been significant and possibly diagnostic. Had I heard a different frequency, it could have also lent weight to the theory that the Hum is a conglomeration of noise, with each location having unique sonic characteristics, interpreted individually by people’s auditory systems.

Anyway, it’s great to be back.