ScienceNot yet confirmed elsewhere1 publisher2 min readPublished
An echo can push a whale call's peak past the speed of sound, and the position fix with it
A study in Physical Review E finds surface reflections advance the loudest part of a call. Arrival times read early, and range estimates built on them come in short.
The Scientist · Science desk
What happened
- A whale-tracking program returned a seawater sound speed close to twice the expected value; Spiesberger found no bug in the code and traced the result to a reflection off the sea surface.
- In Physical Review E, Spiesberger and Eugene Terray of Woods Hole show an echo can advance the strongest part of a call while the information carried in it does not outrun sound.
- The altered arrival time could place a nearby whale several hundred metres away from where the animal actually is.
- The first check will be in air, with microphones and a hard floor substituting for the ocean surface, and an optical version of the two paths considered later.
Why it matters
- constraint For any caller close to the surface, the loudest point in a recording stops being usable as the direct-path travel time, which removes the simplest form of multilateration exactly where shallow...
- exposure Archived near-surface detections carry the bias already, and because the contamination produces no code error and no obvious anomaly, there is nothing in the records marking which arrivals were...
- capability An impossible-looking sound speed becomes evidence about the source geometry rather than an outlier to be thrown out, which is the route to tighter localisation.
- precedent The same reasoning licenses claims of light peaks apparently beating c, and those should be read as an untested prediction rather than a result until someone builds the two paths.
The failure sits in the estimator, not in the water. Acoustic fixes are built by comparing arrival times across several seafloor receivers and dividing by an assumed sound speed, which is how a fin whale detected by a single hydrophone out to roughly 100 km can be placed without anyone seeing it [3]. That arithmetic presumes the loudest point in the recording marks the arrival of the direct path. When a call is made near the surface, the direct arrival and the surface-reflected arrival can land close enough together that their peaks and troughs reinforce and cancel, and the strongest point of the combined signal moves earlier or later than either arrival alone [4]. Nothing in the medium speeds up; the overlap relocates the maximum [7].
Run the simulated numbers the way a tracking program would. Against a 1500 m/s baseline, the reshaped test signals had peaks arriving at times that correspond to 1694.5 and 2782.5 m/s [6], which is 13 and 85 percent above the physical speed [14]. Invert that as a locator does, holding sound speed fixed and solving for range, and the fix comes in about 11 percent short in the first case and 46 percent short in the second [15]. The practical scale is smaller and still awkward: at 1500 m/s, displacing a fix by 300 m takes an arrival-time shift of about two tenths of a second [16]. That is well inside what peak-picking software will report without complaint.
What keeps this as bookkeeping rather than new physics is the second half of the paper. Spiesberger and Terray encoded two signals, a zero and a one, identical at first and then diverging [8]. The advanced peak arrives early but carries nothing that distinguishes them; the receiver cannot say which was sent until the diverging portion arrives along the direct path at the ordinary speed of sound [8]. "The effect sounds like a violation of physics," Spiesberger said in a press release, "but it isn't" [10]. His causality gloss is blunter: the trick cannot send a message to your past self to bet on the stock market [13].
The operational distinction that follows is between the peak of a waveform and the earliest moment a receiver can tell two messages apart. Only the second is a travel time. Every localisation method that treats the first as though it were the second inherits an error whose sign and size depend on geometry it never measured [8][4].
What to watch
- Whether the air experiment with microphones and a hard floor reproduces the advanced peak at the predicted magnitude, or fails to.
- Whether whale-tracking groups publish a correction for two-path interference, and whether they reprocess existing near-surface detections.
- Whether anyone builds the optical version with direct and reflected paths, and what peer review makes of a measured faster-than-light peak.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence42
- Adoption
- Insufficient
- Hype gap+12
- Incentives55
- Confidence52
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
Oceanographer John Spiesberger's whale-tracking program calculated sound moving through seawater at nearly twice its expected speed; he checked the code, found no mistake, and the result instead pointed to an echo from the ocean's surface.
- [2]
In a study published in Physical Review E, Spiesberger and Eugene Terray of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that an echo can shift the strongest part of a whale call, making it appear to move faster than sound even though the information within it does not.
- [3]
A single hydrophone can detect a fin whale calling from about 100 km (62 miles) away, and researchers calculate a whale's position by comparing arrival times at several microphones across the seafloor.
- [4]
Near the ocean's surface a call may follow two routes, one direct to the receiver and one bouncing off the surface along a slightly longer path; if the two arrive close together their peaks and troughs overlap, reinforcing or partially cancelling, a process called temporal interference that can move the combined signal's strongest peak forward or backward.
- [5]
By changing the recorded arrival time, the effect could place a nearby whale several hundred yards (hundreds of metres) from its actual position.
- [6]
In one simulation the researchers set the normal speed of sound in water at approximately 1,500 metres per second; after interference reshaped two test signals, their peaks arrived at times corresponding to apparent speeds of about 1,694.5 and 2,782.5 metres per second.
- [7]
The waves themselves did not accelerate; their overlap shifted the signal's most intense point, producing the supersonic calculation.
- [8]
To separate movement of the peak from movement of information, the researchers modelled two signals representing a zero and a one that initially matched then changed in different ways; although interference advanced the strongest peak, the receiver could not reliably identify which signal had been sent until the new information travelling along the direct path arrived, so information remained slower than the normal speed of sound in the simulations.
- [9]
The results remain theoretical and the possible extension to light has not been tested; the researchers think direct and reflected light waves could interfere so that the signal's strongest point appears to move faster than light, but because the reflected wave travels farther it could not deliver information before the direct signal.
- [10]
Spiesberger said in a press release: "The effect sounds like a violation of physics, but it isn't."
- [11]
Spiesberger will first test the effect using microphones and a hard floor as a stand-in for the ocean's surface, with a later experiment potentially recreating the two paths with light.
- [12]
The findings could help researchers locate whales more accurately.
- [13]
Spiesberger joked in the press release: "You can't use this trick to send a message to your past self to bet on the stock market. Causality isn't overturned."
- [14]
The two simulated apparent speeds exceed the 1,500 m/s baseline by about 13 percent and about 85 percent respectively.
- [15]
A range computed from those peak arrival times while holding sound speed at 1,500 m/s would be about 11 percent short in the first simulated case and about 46 percent short in the second.
- [16]
At 1,500 m/s, a 300 m displacement of a position fix corresponds to an arrival-time shift of about 0.2 seconds.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
Entities
- John SpiesbergerFollow
- Eugene TerrayFollow
- Woods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionFollow
- Physical Review EFollow
- Discover MagazineFollow