SETI Fails To Detect Signals Coming From KIC 8462852 (examiner.com) 99
MarkWhittington writes: Rare excitement spread through the scientific community and the media when data from the Kepler Space Telescope indicated something strange going on around a star 1,500 light years away called KIC 8462852. An analysis of the pattern of light coming from the star suggested that a swarm of smaller objects was orbiting the planet. Scientists narrowed down the possible explanations for the data to either a swarm of comets or a group of alien megastructures. According to a story in Space Daily, an examination of KIC 8462852 by SETI, using the Allen Telescope Array, has failed to find any evidence that ET exists around that particular star.
This assumes they are using radio waves, correct? (Score:5, Insightful)
If ET were there, couldn't there be other E-M methods that would attenuate before reaching earth? Not saying there are beings there, but just because radio waves aren't there doesn't mean they aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think he meant "non-leaking to space RF" signals (i.e. fiber optic cables). In other words, communication power is not 'lost' to space, therefore detectable by aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, laser communications is being investigated. That type of communication wouldn't even be noticeable at 1500 LY.
Re: (Score:1)
If ET were there, couldn't there be other E-M methods that would attenuate before reaching earth? Not saying there are beings there, but just because radio waves aren't there doesn't mean they aren't.
If ET were there, transmitting on RF with the same power we use for radio/TV signals - our detectors aren't even good enough to hear it over noise.
Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc (Score:5, Interesting)
If ET were there, transmitting on RF with the same power we use for radio/TV signals - our detectors aren't even good enough to hear it over noise.
From what I understand it's primarily going to pick up military radar or intentional "pings", signal broadcast is very weak compared to radars trying to detect stealth aircraft that is diverting 99%+ of the signal away from the source. There's not really any reason to send radio/TV signals with that power and for information efficiency we're going to encode them so they're almost indistinguishable from noise anyway. The latter is obviously the best since they're the only ones likely to have any information content we could positively identify. So at least for our current level of technology they have to want to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Spitzer is capable of detecting it as a very faint signal, knowing that the actual source is a star. If they are using EM communication, the prower is probably orders of magnitude smaller than the star emission itself. Good luck, catching that with sufficient SNR in the radio domain...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. I would imagine any species sufficiently advanced to do planetary and solar system engineering, probably has moved beyond EM communications. In fact, I really feel that the theory that advanced civilizations will only use radio for a fairly narrow period before moving to other means of communications really means SETI is doomed. That window is probably only a few hundred years, and considering that anything but a very directed high powered signal is likely to dissipate within a few light years of t
Re: (Score:3)
To my mind, the search for life would be better spent on ever better optical telescopes. We can already "sniff" the atmospheres of exoplanets to some extent, and we're probably within a few decades of being able to directly image significant features of Earth-sized planets, not to mention finding evidence of at least photosynthesizing life (which would almost certainly infer a complex biosphere on such a planet).
Re: (Score:1)
Absence of proof is not proof of absence.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't know whether fish exist, and you stick your head underwater in the ocean and don't see any, that is evidence against the existence of fish. It isn't very strong evidence, since the ocean is big and these "fish" might be somewhere else.
The probability of a single proposition is philosophically a bit iffy, but individuals tend to have opinions on those things, and we can regard people's opinions as making up a probability. It's certainly fuzzy logic, if not specifically probability.
They are looking for engines too... (Score:3)
Two different types of radio signals were sought:
(1) Narrow-band signals, of order 1 Hz in width, such as would be generated as a "hailing signal" for societies wishing to announce their presence.
This is the type of signal most frequently looked for by radio SETI experiments.
(2) Broad-band signals that might be due to beamed propulsion within this star system.
If astroengineering projects are really underway in the vicinity of KIC 8462852, one might reasonably expect the presence of spacecraft to service this activity.
If these craft are propelled by intense microwave beams, some of that energy might manifest itself as broad-band radio leakage.
They are looking for possible "engine noise" too.
So far... well... nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well SETI didn't say they weren't there, they just said they haven't found any evidence of somebody being there. Since SETI only checks radio spectrum signals - that lack of proof is limited to that domain.
Unfortunately we really don't have much technology for doing any other kind of looking right now, nor the funding to develop any, nor the political will to supply the funding.
Who knows what we may have missed (not just with this case but in the 20-odd years since SETI lost it's original budget), because w
Re: (Score:2)
From what we know the universe should be teeming with life, so where is everybody?
This is the question Drake was actually asking with the "Drake equation". It's not a huge stretch to imagine species that develop fossil fuel technology self destruct in a very short time (geologically speaking). A fate not that different from fermenting yeast in a sealed container.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you saying that we are the universe's beer?
In other news, dog bites man, politician corrupt (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how is SETI not finding a signal in anyway shape or form news ?
Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup (Score:4, Insightful)
Because there's a difference between not finding it after checking and not finding it after not-checking...?
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr: They saw something funny there at high frequencies. So it's news that they don't see anything funny at lower frequencies.
Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup (Score:4, Informative)
Just how is SETI not finding a signal in anyway shape or form news ?
Following the scientific method a negative result is an equally valid result ;)
Re: (Score:1)
M
y
t
h
B
u
s
t
e
d
Re: (Score:2)
Entanglement does not facilitate the transfer of information.
Entanglement does not enable FTL communication.
Entanglement does not violate causality.
Re: (Score:1)
I think it does. It's how we solve the black hole information paradox. Hawking radiation tunnels the information back out into meatspace by entangled virtual particles. The anti particle half collides with a real particle inside the event horizon, causing the real half to transform into the portion of the real particle that merged with the antiparticle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That last point- do you mean that:
> Factoring is NP complete, and entanglement won't work the way it is supposed to in Shor's algorithm*?
> Factoring is P, and shor's algorithm only works for that reason?
> Factoring is a special case, but entanglement doesn't solve a broad or general set of NP problems?
> Something else?
*You probably don't mean this one because Shor's algorithm has been used small numbers already, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Factoring is an NP problem, but there's no particular reason to believe that it's in P or that it's NP-complete. (Of course, if P==NP, it's both in P and NP-complete.) I don't quite get what you mean by "special case", since problems are in P or NP or are NP-hard based on the algorithms that will solve them. Since classical and quantum computers do somewhat different things, it's possible that a problem is in P on a quantum computer and not in P on a classical computer.
Of course, if a quantum computer
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out what the poster is saying by "we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve". If factoring is NP complete (the first case), then does he mean that somehow Shor's algorithm is not ACTUALLY helping solve an NP complete problem? Like, the little bit of quantum processing we have is actually working by another mechanism that would break down if extended to large numbers of qubits, meaning that he's claiming a problem with quantum mechanics?
Or does he mea
Re: (Score:2)
Factoring is probably not NP-complete. It's a well-studied problem, and nobody's come up with an NP-completeness proof. It's likely not in P, for much the same reason: people have studied it a lot and haven't found a polynomial algorithm. If P != NP, there are going to be levels between P and NP, and therefore problems that are in neither. The best bet, from what I've seen, is that factoring is one of those in-between problems. (If P == NP, all of this is moot, as all NP problems are then both NP-com
Re: (Score:2)
It has been speculated that no quantum computer can solve NP-complete/hard problems "faster" (ie in P). But then we also have a *very* small set of quantum algorithms to do anything at all. It just so happens that on of them is factoring. With large constants and a heavy burden on total number of
Re: (Score:1)
We think we do. History has shown a lot of the things we "know" were, in fact, incorrect. (at best, incomplete) Given our current understanding and technology, entanglement is little more than a novelty. We simply don't know how to use it to transmit information -- at all, at any speed. (then there's the issue of getting the entanglement to last long enough to span a useful distance. A few mm in a lab is just more novelty.)
Re: (Score:2)
Two possible explanations... (Score:2, Funny)
In other news, I recently discovered my car wouldn't start. I've narrowed it down to two possible explanations: either the battery is dead or my cat has telepathic powers and doesn't want me to leave. I have been unable to find evidence of my cat's telepathic powers. Just thought you'd like to know.
Re: (Score:2)
Your cat would want you to go to work so it could lick it's ass in peace for a change.
SETI scientist are proving themselves incompetent (Score:1)
First off SETI is incapable of discerning signals from noise at >200 LY's away. Secondly, aliens with Dyson Swarms are in now way communicating with crappy, inefficient radiowaves. They are likely using laser based communication or something even more exotic.
I really do hope the next look at 2017 reveals even greater light fluctuation, proving definitively an alien megastructure. Hopefully they lend over some scientist cause our current crop aren't meeting specification.
SETI's fail (Score:1)
I spent years donating my computing time to SETI, when I started to investigate how they did what they did and alien life on my own.
First and foremost - SETI leverages Radio telescopes for discovery of life on other planets.
Most human life - is visually and auditory in nature - so when I started asking questions such as 'why are they looking for radio communications and radio evidence of life, when there's a high probability that life on other planets which is like us may have gone down different developmen
Re: (Score:2)
tl;dr :
>Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.
Just this right here.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.
But SETI and most of the other programs are in fact searching space not for aliens at all, but looking for another instance of beings exactly like us. Not found more just like us this week? Oh well, keep trying! Got to be another Hoboken New Jersey out there somewhere.
It's just stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
> Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.
But SETI isn't supposed to find space jellyfish, it's trying to find people who are actively trying to make their presence known (and likely send a message).
It's not SETL. You aren't looking for extraterrestrial life. You're looking for extraterrestrial intelligence- specifically, that which is trying to find an easy way
Re: (Score:3)
Radio is an imagined construct created through a collective agreement our population has with our reality.
Radio is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space.
It's the same everywhere in the universe. Mankind didn't "invent" radio, we discovered it. It's a major side effect of one of the four basic forces of the universe.
We're too distant to pick up communication (unless that communication is intentional and either aimed right at us or very powerful - or both). However, if the aliens are using microwave power or space-based RADAR, we might be able to pick that up.
Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.
We're doing the visual part (w
Re: (Score:3)
Eh, I only agree with you in part. SETI won't find casual RF communications at long distances, and maybe not even short distances. SETI absolutely could find a species that is looking to communicate (for ill or good). This is because RF communications are a really solid way to get a message across a lot of galactic scale space, when pretty much nothing else could do so very easily. You'd have to be directing that communication, is the big catch, over most distances that are interesting, so it sort of as
Failure means nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
We have never had ANY reason to assume aliens of any kind use radio as we know it. Even among the life forms on Earth, many of which are very closely related to us, absolutely NONE of them have developed or discovered radio except humans. So therefore, we already know radio happens 1 in some billions of species even when they are our close relatives.
Among aliens unlikely to be anything like us, we have to assume that they may never have found radio, or use it differently. SETI essentially looks out into space looking to find ourselves. This is just ludicrous. What little we know about space and other planets tells us the universe is incredibly diverse. We aren't going to find another US out there. So no wonder they have always failed.
Re: (Score:2)
> Or pheromones?
Fry, ready the smelloscope !
Re: (Score:2)
Even among the life forms on Earth, many of which are very closely related to us, absolutely NONE of them have developed or discovered radio except humans
Are you serious? Or kidding? Or stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of the other species developed tech besides the level and maybe the wheel, though. We obviously can't get a message from sapients that can't send one or aren't trying, and definitely not unintelligent life- that's the I in SETI, after all.
There's a short list of effects that can span distance, and photons are at the top. It doesn't matter what they developed with- if they are sending signal, then they are a lot more advanced than us, and they'll know that radio is a reasonable thing, even if they nev
Do Dyson Spheres let out radio frequencies? (Score:1)
If it's a Dyson Sphere, would radio waves pass through it? If not, then this tells us nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think that this whole concept of a Dyson Sphere and the civilisation 1-4 scale is misleading and implausible. There is no good reason to believe that any civilisation would harness all of the (centralized) energy of a whole sun rather than using many small energy sources like fusion reactors or whatever else might be possible in future.
Re: (Score:2)
We've got a nice gravity-contained fusion reactor about 93 million miles from here. It's pretty reliable, and it's not going to cause too many bad side effects at this distance. (At least not for the next few hundred million years.) If we needed lots and lots of energy, and had a spacefaring civilization, why would we build all those teeny little fusion reactors when we have a really big one set up and ready to go? Most of the fusion fuel is also in our handy star, and we'll top out the energy we can g
Re: (Score:2)
If it's a Dyson Sphere, would radio waves pass through it?
Yes. [wikipedia.org] Dyson Spheres aren't solid.
Intercepted Transmission Home (Score:1)