| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 51:33:21 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
21 files (18,502K bytes) |
| Messages: | 178,040 |
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got >published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted
by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps
of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do
from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in >space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly
as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral
even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses.
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the
much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It
snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got
published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted
by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps
of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do
from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in
space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly
as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral
even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses.
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the
much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It
snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy.
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got
published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted >>> by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps
of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do >>>from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in >>> space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly
as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral
even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses.
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the
much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It
snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got >>>> published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted >>>> by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do
from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in >>>> space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral >>>> even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses.
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the
much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It
snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
On 26/09/2025 18:07, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got >>>>> published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted >>>>> by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do >>>> >from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in >>>>> space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral >>>>> even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses. >>>>>
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the >>>>> much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It >>>>> snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion. >>>> It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
One of the microphone designers at Knowles once told me that about half
the noise in their best microphones came from Brownian motion and the
rest from electrical noise. Their "quiet room" at the factory was
a large (about 1 cubic foot) block of steel with a very small test
cavity. It sat on an inflated rubber ring.
I have been in a few large anechoic chambers. The quietest one which
was at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment claimed a
noise floor of something like -10dB(A). All I could hear was my
heartbeat and turbulence in the blood flow near my ears.
That particular chamber consisted of a 5m cubic concrete box with
1.5m long sound absorbing wedges on the inside. It was suspended on
springs or pneumatic bearings inside another concrete box. There was a >drawbridge between the inner and outer boxes. The floor was wire mesh.
Being in a room with a springy floor and no sound or sound reflection is
a very strange sensation.
John
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing
the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian
noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon. The residual noise ('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if
the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB improvement every time the area is doubled).
On 26/09/2025 19:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement.-a Brownian motion is manifest as noise
cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is
amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing
the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian
noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon.-a The residual noise
('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if
the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB
improvement every time the area is doubled).
Yes.-a Measurements at the RSRE anechoic chamber were done using a
1 inch microphone for exactly that reason. Anything smaller would
have more noise than the chamber.
Am 26.09.25 um 20:28 schrieb John R Walliker:
On 26/09/2025 19:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement.-a Brownian motion is manifest as noise >>> cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is
amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing
the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian
noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon.-a The residual noise
('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if
the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB
improvement every time the area is doubled).
Yes.-a Measurements at the RSRE anechoic chamber were done using a
1 inch microphone for exactly that reason. Anything smaller would
have more noise than the chamber.
I have been in a magnetically shielded room at PTB in Berlin, at least
at that time the magnetically quietest place on earth. IIRC 7 layers
of MuMetall + other stuff, and big enough for some people. They used
it for contactless measurement of brain currents with SQUID arrays.
< https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/institutes-at-ptb/geraetezentrum-8-2/services.html -a-a-a >
Cheers, Gerhard
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 18:56:30 +0100, John R Walliker
<jrwalliker@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/09/2025 18:07, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got >>>>> published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted
by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do >>>> >from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually). >>>>>
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in
space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral >>>>> even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses. >>>>>
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the >>>>> much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It >>>>> snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion. >>>> It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
One of the microphone designers at Knowles once told me that about half
the noise in their best microphones came from Brownian motion and the
rest from electrical noise. Their "quiet room" at the factory was
a large (about 1 cubic foot) block of steel with a very small test
cavity. It sat on an inflated rubber ring.
I have been in a few large anechoic chambers. The quietest one which
was at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment claimed a
noise floor of something like -10dB(A). All I could hear was my
heartbeat and turbulence in the blood flow near my ears.
That particular chamber consisted of a 5m cubic concrete box with
1.5m long sound absorbing wedges on the inside. It was suspended on >springs or pneumatic bearings inside another concrete box. There was a >drawbridge between the inner and outer boxes. The floor was wire mesh. >Being in a room with a springy floor and no sound or sound reflection is
a very strange sensation.
John
The one at Bell was similar, a giant room with a wire mesh floor
midway up. It had a mild trampoline feel. Walking in was like being
drowned in liquid silence.
Seems like a multiple-element mike could decorrelate Brownian noise. Electrical noise too.
On 26/09/2025 18:07, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it >>>>> got
published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons
predicted
by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do >>>> >from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though.
Everything in
space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately
neutral
even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses. >>>>>
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the >>>>> much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It >>>>> snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion. >>>> It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
John Larkin
Highland Tech Glen Canyon Design Center
Lunatic Fringe Electronics
One of the microphone designers at Knowles once told me that about half
the noise in their best microphones came from Brownian motion and the
rest from electrical noise.-a Their "quiet room" at the factory was
a large (about 1 cubic foot) block of steel with a very small test
cavity.-a It sat on an inflated rubber ring.
I have been in a few large anechoic chambers.-a The quietest one which
was at the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment claimed a
noise floor of something like -10dB(A).-a All I could hear was my
heartbeat and turbulence in the blood flow near my ears.
That particular chamber consisted of a 5m cubic concrete box with
1.5m long sound absorbing wedges on the inside.-a It was suspended on springs or pneumatic bearings inside another concrete box.-a There was a drawbridge between the inner and outer boxes.-a The floor was wire mesh. Being in a room with a springy floor and no sound or sound reflection is
a very strange sensation.
On 9/26/25 21:01, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 26.09.25 um 20:28 schrieb John R Walliker:
On 26/09/2025 19:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement.-a Brownian motion is manifest as
noise
cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>>> amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing >>>> the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian >>>> noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon.-a The residual noise >>>> ('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if >>>> the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB
improvement every time the area is doubled).
Yes.-a Measurements at the RSRE anechoic chamber were done using a
1 inch microphone for exactly that reason. Anything smaller would
have more noise than the chamber.
I have been in a magnetically shielded room at PTB in Berlin, at least
at that time the magnetically quietest place on earth. IIRC 7 layers
of MuMetall + other stuff, and big enough for some people. They used
it for contactless measurement of brain currents with SQUID arrays.
< https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/institutes-at-ptb/geraetezentrum-8-2/
services.html -a-a-a >
They need to update their web site a bit, or they don't seem to
have noticed that the kg *has* been redefined in terms of natural
constants since 2019.
Jeroen Belleman
On 26/09/2025 18:56, John R Walliker wrote:
On 26/09/2025 18:07, john larkin wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it >>>>>> got
published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons
predicted
by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do >>>>> >from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually). >>>>>>
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though.
Everything in
space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately
neutral
even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses. >>>>>>
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the >>>>>> much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It >>>>>> snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion. >>>>> It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
Ears do a hardware realtime Fourier transform as well as time
differential response to any sort of sudden click. Music appreciation
and predator/prey to avoid/stalk respectively.
Off axis the eyes are a lot more sensitive but with less resolution and
very sophisticated local motion detection. Astronomers call it using
averted vision - looking directly at the target you have high resolution >with colour if it is bright enough and off axis you have near quantum >limited monochrome detection with about 1/4 the resolution.
If you spend a few hours in a darkroom you see random colour noise
patterns and any light leaks due to imperfect blackouts. High quality >darkrooms have black velvet lined folded back entry with three sets of >doors.
On 9/26/25 21:01, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 26.09.25 um 20:28 schrieb John R Walliker:They need to update their web site a bit, or they don't seem to
On 26/09/2025 19:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement.-a Brownian motion is manifest as
noise
cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>>> amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing >>>> the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian >>>> noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon.-a The residual noise >>>> ('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if >>>> the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB
improvement every time the area is doubled).
Yes.-a Measurements at the RSRE anechoic chamber were done using a
1 inch microphone for exactly that reason. Anything smaller would
have more noise than the chamber.
I have been in a magnetically shielded room at PTB in Berlin, at least
at that time the magnetically quietest place on earth. IIRC 7 layers
of MuMetall + other stuff, and big enough for some people. They used
it for contactless measurement of brain currents with SQUID arrays.
<
https://www.ptb.de/cms/en/ptb/institutes-at-ptb/geraetezentrum-8-2/services.html -a-a-a >
Cheers, Gerhard
have noticed that the kg *has* been redefined in terms of natural
constants since 2019.
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 21:41:28 +0100, Martin Brown
If you spend a few hours in a darkroom you see random colour noise
patterns and any light leaks due to imperfect blackouts. High quality
darkrooms have black velvet lined folded back entry with three sets of
doors.
I have phosphenes, a continuous background light show, with some
moving structures. I had a medical event where they went away for a
couple of days. It was really weird being in the dark. Boring.
Astronauts see cosmic rays.
I think some people see stuff during an MRI. I don't.
On 26/09/2025 21:10, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 9/26/25 21:01, Gerhard Hoffmann wrote:
Am 26.09.25 um 20:28 schrieb John R Walliker:
On 26/09/2025 19:04, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
They need to update their web site a bit, or they don't seem to
have noticed that the kg *has* been redefined in terms of natural
constants since 2019.
Largely because the original platinum reference kilogrammes were slowly evaporating (or otherwise losing mass). I confess that I am amazed that
they can define the kg in this way with sufficient precision.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 02:54:48 +1000, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
wrote:
On 27/09/2025 12:52 am, john larkin wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2025 10:10:15 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
I'm very sceptical about the claims made in this paper but again it got >>>> published so it is at least plausible. Charged heavy gravitons predicted >>>> by supersymmetry N=8 could be hiding dark matter.
One in every 20km cube of the solar system would be enough.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
My instinct is that if it is correct then they exist as neutral clumps >>>> of these primordial objects the same way that protons and neutrons do
from quarks. It may even be experimentally detectable (eventually).
IOW very rare incredibly heavy particles lurking in plain sight.
I really don't like the idea of them being charged though. Everything in >>>> space astrophysics works to neutralise any charge imbalance as quickly >>>> as possible in essence gaseous plasmas are always approximately neutral >>>> even if they consist of charged particles with very different masses.
The only time when there is charge separation is when a supernova
shockwave goes past and the electrons accelerate a lot more than the
much heavier protons. Large scale EMP type effect from gamma rays. It
snaps back again PDQ and the nebula lights up as a result.
If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy.
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
If you spend maybe half an hour in a really good anechoic chamber, you
will hear Brownian motion. I've done it, at Bell Labs.
Human eyes and ears operate close to quantum limits.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is amplified enough.
A standard test for noise in a ribbon microphone consisted of removing
the magnet; the noise level dropped due to the removal of the Brownian
noise from the air molecules striking the ribbon. The residual noise ('Johnson noise' plus amplifier noise) was considered adequately low if
the total noise power dropped by 3dB when the Brownian component was
removed.
Large-diaphragm microphones exhibit less Brownian noise then--
small-diaphragm ones because they average-out the random motion (3dB improvement every time the area is doubled).
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still
be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to
Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where
the noise is coming from.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise >>> cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is
amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still
be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to
Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where
the noise is coming from.
A sensitive microphone in a chamber which could be evacuated or filled
with different gasses at different temperatures would soon reveal if
there was a component in the Brownian noise caused by something other
than the thermal agitation of air molecules. Are you saying nobody has thought of this?
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise >>> cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>> amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still
be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to
Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where >> the noise is coming from.
A sensitive microphone in a chamber which could be evacuated or filled
with different gasses at different temperatures would soon reveal if
there was a component in the Brownian noise caused by something other
than the thermal agitation of air molecules. Are you saying nobody has thought of this?
I don't see how gas-swapping would do any more than change the amplitude
of the noise.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise >>>>> cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>>>> amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still >>>> be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to
Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where >>>> the noise is coming from.
A sensitive microphone in a chamber which could be evacuated or filled
with different gasses at different temperatures would soon reveal if
there was a component in the Brownian noise caused by something other
than the thermal agitation of air molecules. Are you saying nobody has
thought of this?
I don't see how gas-swapping would do any more than change the amplitude
of the noise.
Yes, but if the noise didn't change in the way predicted for different
gasses or temperatures, it would indicate that some other mechanism was
at work.
On 28/09/2025 3:41 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise
cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>>>> amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still >>>> be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to
Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where >>>> the noise is coming from.
A sensitive microphone in a chamber which could be evacuated or filled >>> with different gasses at different temperatures would soon reveal if
there was a component in the Brownian noise caused by something other
than the thermal agitation of air molecules. Are you saying nobody has >>> thought of this?
I don't see how gas-swapping would do any more than change the amplitude >> of the noise.
Yes, but if the noise didn't change in the way predicted for different gasses or temperatures, it would indicate that some other mechanism was
at work.
You pointed out that some of the random noise on your microphone output
was Johnson noise in the amplifier. Best of luck with quantifying your predictions accurately enough to tease out a third mechanism of noise generation.
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 3:41 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
[...]
But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise.
I don't understand that statement. Brownian motion is manifest as noise
cause by random motion of the air molecules and we can hear it if it is >>>>>>> amplified enough.
And if the air was disturbed by passing heavy gravitons it would still >>>>>> be random noise. What we hear is random noise - we attribute it to >>>>>> Brownian motion, but nothing in what we hear allows us to work out where >>>>>> the noise is coming from.
A sensitive microphone in a chamber which could be evacuated or filled >>>>> with different gasses at different temperatures would soon reveal if >>>>> there was a component in the Brownian noise caused by something other >>>>> than the thermal agitation of air molecules. Are you saying nobody has >>>>> thought of this?
I don't see how gas-swapping would do any more than change the amplitude >>>> of the noise.
Yes, but if the noise didn't change in the way predicted for different
gasses or temperatures, it would indicate that some other mechanism was
at work.
You pointed out that some of the random noise on your microphone output
was Johnson noise in the amplifier. Best of luck with quantifying your
predictions accurately enough to tease out a third mechanism of noise
generation.
You seem to have wandered off the point by invoking other causes of
noise which are likely to be below the threshold of detection. Your
original statement "But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise." did not make sense to me when you wrote it and it still doesn't
make sense. to me now.
On 28/09/2025 4:56 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 3:41 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
What I originally posted was a reaction to John Larkin's
"If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy."
to which I responded
"But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise."
If you had processed John Larkin's half-witted proposition you might
have understood my response to it.
One heavy graviton per 21.5 kilometre cube of space isn't actually going to be noisy. We don't know what one might do if it showed up in the
atmosphere at sea level. The point about dark matter is that it doesn't interact with normal matter by any mechanism other than gravitational attraction and a nanogram of mass isn't going to produce much of a tidal effect.
The fact that this particular basic particle would have one electron/proton's worth of charge might mess that up a bit, but we
wouldn't see the basic particle but some kind of bizarre diatomic
molecule with a dipole moment, and dipole fields a decay with the fourth
(on axis) to the sixth power (off axis) of distance.
Anyway finding one would take more than listening for it, as was made
clear in the original article, which seemed to think that some of the
exotic particle detectors which we've sticking down mines for years now might be reconfigured to detect their particular exotic particle.
On 29/09/2025 3:11 am, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 28/09/2025 4:56 pm, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 3:41 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 28/09/2025 1:35 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On 27/09/2025 4:04 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
What I originally posted was a reaction to John Larkin's
"If heavy gravitons exist, wouldn't we hear them? Like brownian motion.
It would be noisy."
to which I responded
"But we don't hear Brownian motion. It's just random noise."
If you had processed John Larkin's half-witted proposition you might
have understood my response to it.
One heavy graviton per 21.5 kilometre cube of space isn't actually
going to be noisy. We don't know what one might do if it showed up in
the atmosphere at sea level. The point about dark matter is that it
doesn't interact with normal matter by any mechanism other than
gravitational attraction and a nanogram of mass isn't going to produce
much of a tidal effect.
The fact that this particular basic particle would have one
electron/proton's worth of charge might mess that up a bit, but we
wouldn't see the basic particle but some kind of bizarre diatomic
molecule with a dipole moment, and dipole fields a decay with the
fourth (on axis) to the sixth power (off axis) of distance.
Anyway finding one would take more than listening for it, as was made
clear in the original article, which seemed to think that some of the
exotic particle detectors which we've sticking down mines for years
now might be reconfigured to detect their particular exotic particle.
When I went back to start of the thread and read the link again
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/09/250925025403.htm
I noticed that I'd managed to forget quite a few of the details, but so
had Martin Brown. It's a gravitino, not a graviton,-a and there are eight
of them, two have a charge of +/-2/3 of an electron and the even rarer
other six have a charge of +/-1/3 of an electron.
I suspect that the 2/3 charge gravitino's would couple up as weird
massive diatomic molecule in low temperature environments - anywhere
outside a star - and the 1/3 charge gravitio's would couple up with each other in the same way.
Whether the dipole moments of the pairs would offer enough interaction
with normal matter to let them be detected strikes me as something that might need to be looked into.