Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SETI@Home Adds New Search Method

Posted by Soulskill on Sun Jul 27, 2008 12:19 PM
from the look-for-interstellar-torrents dept.
Adam Korbitz writes to point out that SETI@Home has added a new algorithm for use in evaluating signals from outer space. It's called "Astropulse," and they've made the scientific details available. Quoting: "The original SETI@home is narrowband, meaning that it is listening for a particular radio frequency. That's like listening to an orchestra playing, and trying to hear when anyone plays the note "A sharp." Astropulse listens for short-time pulses. In the orchestra analogy, it's like listening for a quick drum beat, or a series of drumbeats. Since no one knows what extraterrestrial communications will 'sound like,' it seems like a good idea to search for several types of signals. In scientific terms, Astropulse is a sky survey that searches for microsecond transient radio pulses."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • Surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FeatureBug (158235) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:25PM (#24359305)
    I find it slightly surprising it has taken the SETI project how many years to start checking broadband as well as narrowband signals. All those years spending a fortune in resources but only checking narrowband seems rather a waste of time. I would have been checking all sorts of broadband signal types from the very beginning.
    • by Ilgaz (86384) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:41PM (#24359943) Homepage

      Broadband wasn't common in 1999. Now they figure aliens must have upgraded too. ;)

      • Re:Surprising by FeatureBug (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:48PM
        • Re:Surprising by Ilgaz (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:51PM
          • Re:Surprising by FeatureBug (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:07PM
          • Re:Surprising by MichaelSmith (Score:3) Sunday July 27 2008, @05:36PM
        • Re:Surprising by davester666 (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:59PM
          • Re:Surprising by FeatureBug (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:17PM
    • Re:Surprising (Score:4, Interesting)

      by smaddox (928261) on Sunday July 27 2008, @02:06PM (#24360205)

      They chose 1420 megahertz for a good reason:

      There is, however, a pronounced minimum in the radio-noise spectrum. Lying at the minimum or near it are several natural frequencies that should be discernible by all scientifically advanced societies. They are the resonant frequencies emitted by the more abundant molecules and free radicals m interstellar space. Perhaps the most obvious of these resonances is the frequency of 1,420 megahertz (millions of cycles per second). That frequency is emitted when the spinning electron in an atom of hydrogen spontaneously flips over so that its direction of spin is opposite to that of the proton comprising the nucleus of the hydrogen atom. The frequency of the spin-flip transition of hydrogen at 1,420 megahertz was first suggested as a channel for interstellar communication in 1959 by Philip Morrison and Giuseppe Cocconi. Such a channel may be too noisy for communication precisely because hydrogen, the most abundant interstellar gas, absorbs and emits radiation at that frequency. The number of other plausible and available communication channels is not large, so that determining the right one should not be too difficult.

      Source:http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc252.htm

      More recently scientists have considered neutrino signals to be much more likely for alien communications since they can be sent across the universe with minimal signal degradation. The problem is that they are very hard to sense, and even harder to generate as a controllable signal.

    • Re:Surprising (Score:5, Informative)

      by Yvanhoe (564877) on Sunday July 27 2008, @02:27PM (#24360369) Journal
      No ressource was wasted. I suppose it takes more CPU cycles to check for both narrow and broad signals. The SETI project started by trying to have the lowest CPU usage possible and even by checking signals in a single wavelength in all the sky, it required the SETI@home project : touted as the biggest computation of all human history. Now they apparently are near completing their initial goal of checking for signals in the hydrogen wavelength, so they propose to use more power to check other forms of possible signals.
      • Re:Surprising by ProfessionalCookie (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @01:38PM
    • Re:Surprising by Hurricane78 (Score:1) Friday August 01 2008, @03:17AM
    • Re:Surprising by Hurricane78 (Score:1) Tuesday August 05 2008, @08:18PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Yes but (Score:4, Insightful)

    by negRo_slim (636783) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:25PM (#24359309) Homepage
    Haven't we already covered this? The cost in electricity for them to use my "unused" resources is not worth it for SETI which offers and most likely will never offer any tangible benefit to our society.
    • Re:Yes but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vertinox (846076) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:39PM (#24359415)

      The cost in electricity for them to use my "unused" resources is not worth it for SETI which offers and most likely will never offer any tangible benefit to our society.

      True, but who are you to say what others due with their free CPU cycles?

      Personally, I like protein folding, but if other people want to look for alien life with their cycles then its their computer.

      • Re:Yes but by arth1 (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @12:57PM
        • Re:Yes but by strelitsa (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:02PM
          • Re:Yes but by arth1 (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:45PM
            • Re:Yes but by jlarocco (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @04:09PM
              • Re:Yes but by slashgrim (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @07:17PM
              • Re:Yes but by WgT2 (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @07:28PM
              • Re:Yes but by jlarocco (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @09:40PM
              • Re:Yes but by Nazlfrag (Score:3) Monday July 28 2008, @03:49AM
              • Re:Yes but by cmburns69 (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @11:52AM
              • Re:Yes but by WgT2 (Score:2) Tuesday July 29 2008, @01:55AM
              • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
            • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Yes but by BorgHunter (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @04:31PM
        • Re:Yes but by mdwh2 (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @06:31PM
          • Re:Yes but by mdwh2 (Score:1) Monday July 28 2008, @06:06PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Yes but by arth1 (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @02:01AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Yes but by Lazy Jones (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:07PM
        • Re:Yes but by Joebert (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:18PM
          • Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:04PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:Yes but by mdwh2 (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @06:34PM
      • Re:Yes but by Sanguis Mortuum (Score:3) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:33PM
        • Re:Yes but by ameline (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:40PM
      • Re:Yes but by Macrat (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:38PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Yes but (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:45PM (#24359475) Homepage
      The proven existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life will have a profound effect on a lot of people's core religious beliefs. That alone will have a major effect on society and it might just turn a few people away from their outdated superstitious beliefs. I consider that a tangible benefit.
      • Re:Yes but by Stan Vassilev (Score:3) Sunday July 27 2008, @12:54PM
        • Re:Yes but by Monkey-some (Score:1) Monday July 28 2008, @05:01AM
        • Re:Yes but by bill_mcgonigle (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @02:12PM
      • Re:Yes but (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Memroid (898199) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:54PM (#24359539)
        Yes, but just think of how many more crazy religions it would spawn...
        • Re:Yes but by Nazlfrag (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @03:59AM
      • Re:Yes but by Joebert (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:23PM
        • Re:Yes but by Macrat (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @03:27PM
        • Re:Yes but by Ginger Unicorn (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @06:25AM
        • Re:Erm... by Gordonjcp (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:47PM
        • Re:Erm... by FlyingSquidStudios (Score:3) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:56PM
          • Re:Erm... by Joebert (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:15PM
        • Re:Erm... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by MagdJTK (1275470) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:57PM (#24360113)

          His point was that people can be good without being religious. And of course people can be nasty and religious at the same time.

          ...go fuck yourself.

          Your posts have done a lot to back up his claim.

          • Re:Erm... by Joebert (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:11PM
            • Re:Erm... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @03:53PM
              • Re:Erm... by Joebert (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @08:55PM
        • Re:Erm... Why SETI then? by Progman3K (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @05:19PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Yes but by hansamurai (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:28PM
        • Re:Yes but by FlyingSquidStudios (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:58PM
          • Re:Yes but by ljw1004 (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @04:01PM
            • Re:Yes but by LordSnooty (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @05:14PM
        • Re:Yes but by Bat Country (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @10:54AM
      • Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:35PM
        • Re:Yes but by WalkingFish (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @10:46PM
      • Re:Yes but by ionix5891 (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:42PM
        • Re:Yes but by Migity (Score:1) Monday July 28 2008, @12:52AM
      • Re:Yes but by Amorymeltzer (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:13PM
      • Highly Debatable (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Crazy Taco (1083423) on Sunday July 27 2008, @02:26PM (#24360361)

        The proven existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life will have a profound effect on a lot of people's core religious beliefs. That alone will have a major effect on society and it might just turn a few people away from their outdated superstitious beliefs. I consider that a tangible benefit.

        Yes, but is there any alien life? Certainly there's been no evidence of any, though you talk as though it certainly, and inevitably, exists. It sure sounds like you are the one making assumptions and promoting a faith based argument!

        And as for this changing anyone's beliefs, that's highly debatable. Christian author CS Lewis wrote a trilogy in the late '40s that imagined intelligent life to be on both Mars and Venus. He was a noted apologist and theologian for the Christian faith, and he had no problem with considering the existence of extraterrestrials. (Note: The starting book of the trilogy was called Out of the Silent Planet).

      • Re:Yes but by fastest fascist (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @04:35PM
      • Quite the opposite ... by kbahey (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @08:57PM
      • Re:Yes but by Bat Country (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @10:57AM
      • Re:Yes but by AndGodSed (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:07PM
        • Re:Yes but by Macrat (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:42PM
        • Re:Yes but by AndGodSed (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:09PM
          • Re:Yes but by IdeaMan (Score:1) Monday July 28 2008, @01:28PM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Yes but by bazorg (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:29PM
      • Re:Yes but by KGIII (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:11PM
    • Re:Yes but by TeknoHog (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @03:33PM
    • Re:Yes but by sznupi (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @06:17PM
    • Re:Yes but by Fex303 (Score:3) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:12PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:26PM (#24359319)

    As the information in a radio signal approaches the Shannon limit, it becomes indistinguishable from noise to an outside observer. Any sufficiently advanced civilization will have the technology to maximize the information sent in a radio signal. Therefore we will not be able to detect radio signals from other civilizations (except for perhaps a 100-200 year period in their evolution where they use inefficient radio signals)

  • by AndGodSed (968378) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:27PM (#24359323) Homepage

    Strange that they are only doing that now - haven't they seen Contact?

  • If the alien really IS Jodie Foster's father.
  • by sponga (739683) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:42PM (#24359439)

    You now have the option to filter out aliens who might want to probe you.

  • by Toffins (1069136) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:42PM (#24359443)
    It's very difficult to keep radio waves from spreading out in many directions, thus weakening the signal that can be detected by a distant receiver in any particular direction. Light, on the other hand, being much easier to focus into a tight beam, tends to stay within a narrower cone of space, leaving a stronger signal in the direction of aiming.

    If I wanted to send a signal across the universe, I'd use light, not radio waves.

    So, why is SETI still limiting itself to searching for signals in the radio spectrum?

  • A terrible analogy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by no reason to be here (218628) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:45PM (#24359467) Homepage

    As a musician and a recording engineer, I feel I must comment on the analogy used.

    For someone with a trained ear picking out an A#, or any particular note, shouldn't be all that difficult, especially if that note is tonic, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or other similar high recognizable interval from the tonic. It would be trivially easy for someone with perfect pitch to pick out a particular note.

    I suppose the analogy might hold if we compared the prior SETI searching signals to be like a man who is deaf in his right ear turning his left ear away the orchestra to try and determine if the 2nd piccolo is playing sharp on A#, and now, SETI is that same man, facing forward with a brand new hearing aid, merely trying to pick out staccato notes.

  • by Adreno (1320303) on Sunday July 27 2008, @12:45PM (#24359469)
    ... same results? Given their vast historical success in their endeavors (/sarcasm)... I'd bet on it.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Thump...Thump..Thump..

    I wonder if they should look for styles of rythms. Dance, hip-hop, etc.

  • by photonic (584757) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:08PM (#24359637)
    The type of data analysis they perform on these radio signals looks pretty similar to what they do with the data from gravitational wave detectors such as LIGO [caltech.edu], which also look at both periodic sources and short glitches. In that community, they do an estimation of detection rates based on hard science: number and distribution of stars and expected rates of supernovae etc. Detection rate for last years' science run is on the order of 1 per 10 to 100 years, which should increase to hopefully tens per year with the advanced detectors that should come online in several years. Nothing has been detected yet, but this is more or less understood. If the advanced detectors detect nothing, the taxpayer owes an explanation.

    I wonder if similar detection rates have been calculated for SETI (e.g., assume ET having a transmitter of 1 MW, at what distance would you still detect anything? And how many life supporting planets are in that range? ) This will depend a lot on the parameters in your Drake's equations, but they should at least give some order of magnitudes. I remember reading some skeptic article several years ago, which claimed that even with optimistic estimates, the chance of detecting anything would be absolutely zero.

    Until that time, I rather waste my computer cycles on the LIGO data (Einstein at home [uwm.edu]) or one of the various medical applications (e.g. Folding at home [stanford.edu]), which produce scientific results today.

  • Priorities (Score:1, Redundant)

    by PerroBestial (1333849) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:09PM (#24359647)
    Guys and Dolls, aliens are certainly interesting, but I want to remind everybody that there actually exist projects you may donate machine time to, projects whose results might be more immediately useful, such as folding@home (folding.stanford.edu). Cheers, PB
    • Re:Priorities by Phurge (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @01:19PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Randall311 (866824) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:32PM (#24359849) Homepage
    Does anybody else find it ironic that we are looking for intelligent extra-terrestrial communications on the very same frequency that we (an intelligent species) are prohibited from transmitting on? The 1.420 gigahertz frequency was chose (I believe) because of the hydrogen line. It would seem to me that a more effective methodology would be to do a spectrum sweeping search. The odds of any intelligent species transmitting on just one frequency are unlikely enough. Combine that with the fact that we are only listening on one frequency. Now we can compare finding a needle in a haystack as trivial in comparison.
    • Re:Ironic by 4D6963 (Score:2) Sunday July 27 2008, @02:10PM
    • Re:Ironic (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ransak (548582) on Sunday July 27 2008, @02:27PM (#24360365) Homepage Journal
      The concept of SETI is to look for radio signals that have been intentionally directed toward us (ie, not stray signals).

      The SETI line of thought is if another civilization is intelligent enough to understand the Hydrogen Line and the Microwave Window and that another civilization - us - would understand that as well and use it for radio astronomy, the frequency of Hydrogen (1420.40575 MHz) would be the most likely place we would be listening since the universe is mostly made up of it from what we can tell so far.

    • Re:Ironic by Tablizer (Score:1) Sunday July 27 2008, @03:35PM
    • Re:Ironic by Pedrito (Score:2) Monday July 28 2008, @07:39AM
  • by NewbieProgrammerMan (558327) on Sunday July 27 2008, @01:45PM (#24360001) Homepage

    If SETI ever detects a real, verified alien signal, as soon as I hear the news, I'm going to drop whatever I'm doing, and rush to see the comments on Slashdot. I can't imagine what the response would be if a project so (apparently) universally hated here actually turned up a positive result.

    Not that I run SETI@home, plan to, or expect an actual SETI discovery to happen in my lifetime, if ever. It's just something on my "wouldn't it be funny to watch if..." list.

  • by grikdog (697841) on Sunday July 27 2008, @02:35PM (#24360443) Homepage
    SETI is "listening for aliens," yeah, right! Like Howard Hughes' old Glomar Explorer was mining manganese nodules? The SETI paradigm is so implausible, given the rate at which noise to signal ratios approach infinity as distance from Earth approaches two or three lightyears, that it seems far more likely that all those SETI@Home screensavers are doing something else.

    If Ed Mitchell is right, they're listening for the return of the Mother Ship coming back to Roswell to pick up the survivors, and we'll be lucky if we notice it coming through the Oort Cloud.

    My personal guess is more mundane. All that distributed processing power has been harnessed to help Echelon listen for Al Qaeda.

    SETI is absurd on the merits, though. If aliens are out there, if aliens are advanced, if Einstein was right and quantum mechanics is righter, why would aliens use something as feeble as the electromagnetic spectrum? They're probably doing something we can't even imagine, like knocking on the walls between universes.
  • SETI, as primarily currently pursued, is unlikely to find anything. I sum up my perspective, "We don't talk to nematodes and *they* don't talk to us." It is useful to consider the difference in intellectual capacity between humans and nematodes is far less than that between Matrioshka Brains and us.

    Most advanced extraterrestrial civilizations are going to be far far ahead of us. At the point where they have constructed Matrioshka Brains. The intellectual capacity of an MBrain is roughly a trillion trillion times that of a human brain. They can simulate the history of entire humanities in seconds. We are simply not of interest to them.

    There are 3 ways to detect MBrains.
    1. Stellar occultations (similar to some of the exoplanet searches now being done).
    2. Gravitational microlensing studies (also being done).
    3. Large scale mid-to-far IR surveys looking for bright IR objects that do not appear to be visible (not being done because our far IR detectors are extremely poor and not particularly sensitive; and they must be operated from space so they are $$$).

    The observant will note that none of these involve using computer cycles for the analysis of radio wave noise. The astronomer geeks will notice that long term backyard surveys searching for exoplanets using variations in stellar brightness might either capture candidate stars with exoplanets or perhaps an occasional gravitational microlensing event or maybe an MBrain traveling through the galaxy on its way to the nearest carbon white dwarf star (because they need more carbon for extreme nanotech) or a stellar gas nebula for a fueling pit stop. The extremely astute might notice that should sufficient numbers of these be discovered then there might be another explanation for all of the "dark matter" which doesn't result from the physics of the universe but from the natural activities of intelligent life. (Perhaps making the theoretical physicists extremely unhappy.)

    It is also the case that to scan large fields of stars for variations in brightness and separating the normal variable stars from those which are "unusual" would not be a small use of ones spare computer time.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 27 2008, @03:11PM (#24360731)

    I would guess, based on human usage, that if SETI intercepted an alien signal it would have a 50% chance of being alien porno.

  • by BigBadBus (653823) on Sunday July 27 2008, @03:21PM (#24360781) Homepage
    ...must we sift through all those old tapes?
  • by Animats (122034) on Sunday July 27 2008, @06:47PM (#24362249) Homepage

    Well, that's progress. I've criticized SETI@Home for looking for "carriers" signals with a large fixed-frequency component. They need to get beyond that. AM and FM signals have carriers (Analog TV is AM video with an FM audio subcarrier), and as a result, 80% of the signal energy is wasted. None of the more modern digital transmission systems have strong carriers.

    The more efficient a transmission system, the more it looks like white noise if you don't know how to decode it. If there's some big repetitive component like a carrier, or the horizontal and vertical retrace intervals in analog TV, it's inefficient. The FCC wouldn't approve any new transmission system which wasted bandwidth like that, and the old ones that do are being phased out.

    So SETI systems that look for carriers are looking for civilizations advanced enough to generate high-power RF signals, but not advanced enough to use more efficient digital modes. Our civilization went through that period in under a century. It's also fairly clear that nobody in our stellar neighborhood is continuously sending a strong RF carrier in our direction; that's been looked for.

    Question: can the new SETI algorithm pick up an HDTV broadcast station?

  • by Ainu (135288) on Monday July 28 2008, @02:26AM (#24365121)

    For a long time I have looked at SETI as doomed to failure... and not because there isn't any intelligent life out there. Here's my reasoning. In the history of the human race, how long have we had radio? Slightly over 100 years.. that's a tiny portion of our over all development. And we can not say that we will still be using the technology 100 years from now. Just as the horse and buggy was the height of technology, the automobile came along and replaced it... and this would not have been anticipated by people in 1800. So we may be looking at a relatively narrow window for use of this technology. So to go along with this you would have to have intelligent aliens who are at a similar stage in development to us.. not too early as to not use radio waves and not beyond the technology. Consider that there are planets and stars much older and younger than our own, and even on our planet how many waves of life there have been, the odds of finding alien life at just the right level of technology would seem to be unlikely.

  • by Prune (557140) on Monday July 28 2008, @06:49AM (#24366581)
    Am I the only one that thought the last line, "In scientific terms, Astropulse is a sky survey that searches for microsecond transient radio pulses." was easier to understand, in its brevity, than the supposedly layman explanation preceding it?
  • by mok000 (668612) on Monday July 28 2008, @07:28AM (#24366921)
    So they'll be able to find nothing even faster...
  • 7 replies beneath your current threshold.