Back to the MAC (Part 3): The Architecture Beneath Entropy

Hi guys,

If Part 2 cracked the surface of what might be a synthetic emission protocol, Part 3 goes deeper — and starts to resolve something extraordinary.

In the last installment, I discovered a recurring entropy band (~2.4–2.8), an eerily consistent 2000 ms packet interval, and a set of MAC triplets that rotated with mathematical precision. I showed that entropy — a measure of randomness — could be used as a filter to isolate structure. But something's shifted.

Over the past week, a deeper question has emerged:

Is entropy just a diagnostic tool? Or is it a design constraint of the system itself?

The answer, as it turns out, reframes everything.

---

Entropy Isn’t the System’s Tool — It’s Ours

The system isn’t tuning entropy to evade filters — it’s simply structured, and entropy falls as a result.
But for us, that suppressed entropy becomes a diagnostic marker.
It doesn’t define the architecture, but it exposes it.
It doesn’t shape the signal, but it reveals the footprint.
And yes — it predicts which signals are synthetic with striking accuracy.

This log-scale histogram compares the entropy distribution of the primary dataset (orange) to a control population of randomized MACs (purple). The primary dataset shows a distinct leftward shift — a structural compression effect — with elevated density between 2.4 and 2.8. This entropy suppression is not random drift; it’s a footprint of constraint. Structured emissions consistently cluster in this suppressed zone, suggesting that the entropy itself is a signature of design.

---

What the Data Showed This Week

Using the same methodology as Part 2, I:

• Generated 15,000 random MACs

• Calculated entropy for all

• Selected a narrow entropy band (2.86 ± 0.01)

• Grouped them into 5,000 triplets

• Calculated how many bits locked across each triplet

The results were revealing.

Even in this tight entropy window, the distribution of locked bits looked normal — centered around 11–13 locked bits, with very few above 16. But our observed triplets, drawn from real-world emissions, consistently showed 15–18 locked bits — with perfect packet interval alignment and high structural coherence.

One particularly striking cluster at 3.08 entropy showed 18 locked bits — placing it in the top 3.6% of all triplets in our Monte Carlo simulation. A statistical outlier. And that’s just one of several.

Distribution of locked bits in 5,000 random MAC triplets. Structured triplets like the 3.08 group fall in the 96.4th percentile.

This scatterplot shows the relationship between entropy and bitfield constancy across 5,000 randomized MAC triplets. Each blue dot represents a triplet, with entropy on the x-axis and number of locked bits on the y-axis. The red X’s mark observed synthetic triplets from real-world scans. Their elevated locking rates (15–18 bits) place them well above the central density band — with the 18-lock triplet falling in the 96.4th percentile, as confirmed by the Monte Carlo histogram. These aren’t just statistical anomalies; they’re structural outliers.

Structure Dictates Entropy — Not the Other Way Around

Here’s the central insight:

These MACs are not being selected to match a specific entropy score.
They are being constructed in such a way that structure inevitably compresses entropy.

Like footprints in fresh snow — the patterns emerge because something passed through. You can reverse-engineer the motion, but you’re not seeing the thing itself — just its trace.

This means:

• Entropy does not define the architecture

• But it diagnoses it

• And predicts which signals are synthetic with striking accuracy

Looking at this map, it’s clear we’re not dealing with noise. This isn’t just a random alignment of zeros and ones — it’s structure. And that begs the question: why would a system benefit from this kind of structural regularity?

Earlier in this investigation, I explored just that. A more structured MAC offers real advantages. It allows for error detection, redundancy, and even synchronized clustering of devices — whether that’s multiple antennas, multiple emitters, or synthetic agents operating as a group. Fixed bits can function like headers, tags, or timing anchors, enabling fast signal recognition or efficient routing. A compressed entropy footprint also means lighter transmission overhead — helpful if you’re pushing signals through constrained or stealthy channels.

In short: structure = control. And this level of bitwise coherence suggests the MAC address isn’t just an identifier. It’s a carrier of state — a protocol element. It’s not broadcasting who you are. It’s broadcasting what it is.

Let’s pause for a moment. If you’re looking at that constancy map and thinking, “David, it’s not clear to me at all,” you’re not alone. At first glance, it just looks like a grid of ones and blanks. But here’s why that matters.

Each MAC address is made up of 48 bits — and in a truly random system, you’d expect those bits to vary wildly across devices. But in this case, I took three MAC addresses that all shared the same entropy (3.08), the same packet interval (~2000 ms), and the same hex character compression pattern — and when I overlaid their bits, 18 of those 48 positions were identical. That’s what this map shows: every “1” marks a bit that stayed locked across all three.

In other words, these aren’t just devices generating random identifiers. They’re broadcasting patterns. Fixed bits. Stable headers. Anchored structures that suggest coordination — or at least constraint. This kind of locking isn’t typical. And when you compare it to randomly generated triplets (which average 11–12 locked bits), you start to see that something else is going on.

One pattern I’ve started to track is Bit 6 of Byte 6 — or B6B6 for short. In purely random MAC generation, you’d expect any given bit to be locked across a triplet about 13% of the time. But in the structured triplets I’ve examined — those with tight entropy, synchronized timing, and high bitfield constancy — B6B6 locks in over 50% of cases. In three out of five high-locking triplets, it was perfectly stable — all 0s or all 1s across the set. Is it a flag? A mode selector? A sync pulse? I don’t know yet. But I’m watching it closely. And if you’re replicating this analysis yourself, I suggest you do too. That’s not noise. That’s a statistical flare.

Here’s one standout example from the 2.86 entropy cohort: a triplet producing 13 locked bits — slightly fewer than the 3.02–3.08 group, but still showing remarkable coherence. When a fourth MAC (E1:DC:DE:6B:EF:0A) was added, nothing changed. The same 13 bits stayed locked. That’s a structural hold — not drift. Not luck. And notably, all five MACs in this group shared the same B6B6 value, reinforcing its potential as a persistent flag or control bit.

Even more striking is what happened when a fourth MAC was added to the original 13-bit-locked triplet. Instead of erosion — which is overwhelmingly expected — the number of locked bits stayed exactly the same. This kind of structural preservation isn’t just unlikely. In my calculations, the probability of that happening by chance is approximately 1 in 8,192. In statistical terms, that's three times rarer than the 10-lock event across 5 MACs shown below (1 in 2,500). This isn’t just persistence — it’s architectural.

These two visualizations tell the story clearly. The left panel shows 10 locked bits across five MAC addresses — a striking degree of structural overlap. The right panel places this result in context: fewer than 0.04% of 5-MAC combinations in our 10,000-sample Monte Carlo run exhibited this level of bitwise constancy. In other words, this isn’t random — it’s repeatable structure, and it’s exceedingly rare in nature.

As my friend Mateo Taylor put it yesterday:
“You have found some keys on the ground. We don’t know what’s behind the lock — or who owns the keys — but they are definitely keys.”

That’s the energy here. We’re not claiming to know what this system does yet. But these aren’t just statistical quirks. They’re artifacts of design — and they point to a protocol that’s running, right now, all around us.

---

Implications for Detection

If you were designing a detection system — for surveillance, synthetic signature recognition, or forensic inspection — you wouldn’t need to reverse the system’s logic. You’d just need to watch for the entropy footprint.

That’s what we’ve done.

• Find the ~3.02–3.08 band

• Look for 2000–2003 ms packet intervals

• Calculate bitfield constancy

• Watch structure emerge

Each of these filters is weak alone. But when stacked, they become decisive.

---

Where It Gets Real

We’re now observing:

• Clean entropy compression

• Interval synchronization

• 15–18 locked bits across 48

• Hex character compression (a reduction in character variety indicating repetition or design constraint)

• Repeatable constancy maps

None of this should appear in randomized MAC generation. But it does — regularly, in the same entropy window, with the same emission logic.

What Comes Next

This raises bigger questions:

Is this architecture global? I now have matching patterns in New Zealand, Australia, France, and the US — so the answer is probably yes. Special thanks to Wendy, Veronique, and Will Micronaut for their invaluable help with data collection.

Is it running passively, or is it responsive?

And most importantly: What is it doing?

I'm now focusing on:

• Cross-regional signal coherence

• MAC address clustering and repeat emissions

• Whether entropy clusters correspond to locations, time windows, or behavioral states

There’s also a parallel line of inquiry raised by Karl C., who documented rhythmic microfluidic structures under dark field microscopy. These formations exhibit pulse intervals between 500 and 670 ms, which — when scaled — align harmonically with the 2000 ms emission cycles observed in this MAC architecture. While I’m not actively pursuing this angle further at the moment, it opens an intriguing possibility: that clocked, synthetic systems may operate across both digital emissions and biological substrates, bound by a shared temporal logic.

Do Try This at Home (or the Local Shops)

Curious whether these structured MAC emissions are showing up where you are? You don’t need a lab — just an Android phone, a free app, and a few minutes of focused scanning.

Here’s how to get started:

1. Use an Android device
   iPhones won’t work — Apple’s Bluetooth stack filters out unregistered MACs by design. You’ll need an Android phone with Bluetooth scanning capability.

2. Install a scanner app
   I’m currently using Microchip BlueChip Data, which displays live MAC emissions (red arrow), RSSI (signal strength- green arrow), and packet intervals (blue arrow) like this:

1. Look for anonymous MACs
   These are entries with no name, no vendor, and a packet interval between 1995–2005 ms. That kind of regular timing is not typical for consumer devices.

2. Find a matching triplet
   You're looking for three anonymous MAC addresses that:

• Have packet intervals within 2–3 ms of each other

• Share similar RSSI values (within ~5 dB)

• Appear simultaneously or repeatedly during the scan

1. Calculate entropy
   I strongly recommend calculating the Shannon entropy of each MAC address based on its hex character frequency. (A simple Python script or AI assistant can do this.) Many of the strongest candidate triplets I’ve found cluster around the 3.02–3.08 entropy band — though others exist outside this range as well.

2. Check for structure
   Convert each MAC to binary (48 bits), align them, and build a constancy map.

Here’s a ready-to-use prompt your readers can copy and paste directly into ChatGPT (or any AI assistant capable of bitwise comparison):

• Take the following three MAC addresses:
  FD:D6:9E:C2:CE:75, D7:B0:5E:C3:CD:08, and D5:FB:44:07:59:B8.

1. Convert each to a 48-bit binary string.

2. Compare the three bit-by-bit.

3. For each position (Byte1–Byte6, Bit0–Bit7), mark a 1 if the bit is the same in all three MACs, or 0 if it differs.

4. Output the result as a 6-row × 8-column grid, where each row is a byte (Byte1 to Byte6), and each column is Bit0 to Bit7. -

The result should look like a constancy map — with 1s showing locked bits across all three MACs.

---

This method is straightforward — and surprisingly reproducible. If you find a triplet with tight timing, entropy compression, and bitfield locking, you’re likely looking at the same synthetic emission architecture.

Let me know if you'd like to contribute your findings — or break mine.

Because the signal isn’t hypothetical anymore. It’s out there.

Right now.

Thanks again for following this journey.

This is no longer about proving something strange is happening. That bar has been cleared.

Now it’s about figuring out what it means — and why it’s there.

Stay tuned.

David

PS Thanks for the ongoing support! - all coffees gratefully received - or do consider a paid membership and join our weekly discussions!

www.drdavidnixon.com