Radio Signal From Space Repeats Every Hour, Defying Explanation (newatlas.com) 95
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Atlas: The universe is awash with strange radio signals, but astronomers have now detected a really bizarre one that repeats every hour, cycling through three different states. While they have some ideas about its origin it can't be explained by our current understanding of physics. The signal first appeared in data gathered by the ASKAP radio telescope in Australia, which watches a big swath of sky at once for transient pulses. Officially designated ASKAP J1935+2148, the signal seems to repeat every 53.8 minutes. Whatever it is, the signal cycles through three different states. Sometimes it shoots out bright flashes that last between 10 and 50 seconds and have a linear polarization, meaning the radio waves all "point" in the same direction. Other times, its pulses are much weaker with a circular polarization, lasting just 370 milliseconds. And sometimes, the object misses its cue and stays silent.
So what could be behind such a weird radio signal? Let's get it out of the way up front: it's not aliens (probably). The most likely explanation, according to the scientists who discovered it, is that it's coming from a neutron star or a white dwarf. But it's not a neat solution, since the signal's weird properties don't fit with our understanding of the physics of those two kinds of objects. Neutron stars and white dwarfs are fairly similar, but with some key differences. They're both born from the deaths of bigger stars, with the original mass dictating whether you end up with a neutron star or a white dwarf. Neutron stars are known to blast radio waves out regularly, so they're a prime suspect here. It's possible that signals this varied could be produced by interactions between their strong magnetic fields and complex plasma flows. But there's a major problem: they usually spin at speeds of seconds or fractions of a second per revolution. It should be physically impossible for one to spin as slow as once every 54 minutes. White dwarfs, on the other hand, would have no problem spinning that slowly, but as the team says, "we don't know of any way one could produce the radio signals we are seeing here." "It might even prompt us to reconsider our decades-old understanding of neutron stars or white dwarfs; how they emit radio waves and what their populations are like in our Milky Way galaxy," added Caleb.
The findings have been published in the journal Nature Astronomy.
So what could be behind such a weird radio signal? Let's get it out of the way up front: it's not aliens (probably). The most likely explanation, according to the scientists who discovered it, is that it's coming from a neutron star or a white dwarf. But it's not a neat solution, since the signal's weird properties don't fit with our understanding of the physics of those two kinds of objects. Neutron stars and white dwarfs are fairly similar, but with some key differences. They're both born from the deaths of bigger stars, with the original mass dictating whether you end up with a neutron star or a white dwarf. Neutron stars are known to blast radio waves out regularly, so they're a prime suspect here. It's possible that signals this varied could be produced by interactions between their strong magnetic fields and complex plasma flows. But there's a major problem: they usually spin at speeds of seconds or fractions of a second per revolution. It should be physically impossible for one to spin as slow as once every 54 minutes. White dwarfs, on the other hand, would have no problem spinning that slowly, but as the team says, "we don't know of any way one could produce the radio signals we are seeing here." "It might even prompt us to reconsider our decades-old understanding of neutron stars or white dwarfs; how they emit radio waves and what their populations are like in our Milky Way galaxy," added Caleb.
The findings have been published in the journal Nature Astronomy.
Aliens don't exist (Score:1, Funny)
Biggest proof is that we haven't been exterminated.
Re:Aliens don't exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Well we're smarter than sharks, and sharks went to the far side of the Milky Way (90,000 light years) and back. Sure, they did it by riding planet Earth and not doing stuff like nuking themselves to extinction, and it took them 200 million years, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on your frame of reference ;)
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, we don't care all that much. Your hands are too short to get us.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they're just incompetent on every single thing. Or senile.
Re:Aliens don't exist (Score:4, Insightful)
Our galaxy alone is 100k light years across. We've sent out signals for less than 100 years. And most of those signals won't reach that far. As big as our galaxy is? Even if it were populated at a rate of 1 intelligent (ish in our case) species per 1,000 light years, and our nearest neighbors developed along a relatively similar timeline, we'd been 400+ years away from our signals reaching each other, let alone having full communication. All the "aliens don't exist" shit is just as nonsensical as the "aliens walk amongst us" shit. We don't know. And it's OK to say we don't know.
We can talk about beliefs, but beliefs aren't science. My belief is in all the universe, there has to be other life. We just aren't anywhere near as special as we want to believe we are. We're a random happenstance. But in a universe this big? I can't believe randomness would play out in this way only once. We're just young, on an astrophysical scale. Hell, we're young on a planetary scale. We're toddlers looking out at the void and trying to say, "Yup. We got it all figured out." We haven't even woken up to how ignorant we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Aliens almost certainly exist and given how simple the mechanism is for artificial neurons there are almost certainly "alien" intelligences operating on varied timescales all around us on Earth hosted on a wide array of mediums besides organic, let alone throughout the universe.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they have placed probes or colonies all over the volume of the galaxy .. especially near M-class planets? Presumably the would have come across Earth millions of years ago and realized there were dinosaurs and monkey-like creatures. Wouldn't they have placed a probe or colony nearby to study it?
Re: (Score:2)
The Great Filter theory suggests the intelligence of beings is outstripped by their penchant for self destruction. [gestures broadly at earth right now]
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that fucking stupid Star Trek trope.
As yet, there isn't a classification of planets even vaguely like Earth. They're too small to be visible in meaningful numbers with meaningfully tight parameter values, and we don't have a good predictive theory of how planets form and evolve that doesn't involve dozens of "just so" parameters.
Say "I know nothing about planetary science" without saying "I know nothing about planetary science" : roll out the "M-class planet" bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
And that was even before we discovered liquid oceans on 'moons' which ups the number of potential habitable systems significantly.
Absolutely a paradox of what 'should' be and what we have observed.
The Great Filters may be really really good at snuffing things out.
Re: (Score:2)
Fermi has a few questions about that. By every metric we know of, the galaxy and universe should be almost littered with civilizations. Old and new. And that was even before we discovered liquid oceans on 'moons' which ups the number of potential habitable systems significantly. Absolutely a paradox of what 'should' be and what we have observed. The Great Filters may be really really good at snuffing things out.
Considering how little of the universe we've observed closely enough to know if there were life out there? The Great Filter could be an imagination problem. Like rinsing sea water soaked sand through our hands and wondering where all the life is in the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless something about intelligent life tends to snuff them out before they get noticeable; hence the Great Filter Theory. Looking around at humanity...it's not exactly a far fetched idea.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the paradox. By the sheer scale of the galaxy and universe, civilizations should be littered about and well detectable. Unless something about intelligent life tends to snuff them out before they get noticeable; hence the Great Filter Theory. Looking around at humanity...it's not exactly a far fetched idea.
That's what the Great Filter Theory says, sure. And yeah, we definitely look to have developed several ways to rid the universe of us if we play the game the way we've been playing it. But even if the universe were filled with life? Who's to say it'd be life that's in the same stage of existence we are and detectable by us, in our technological infancy, at this precise moment. Which is why I mentioned seawater soaked sand. That sand is teeming with life if you look at it the right way. But running it throug
Re: (Score:2)
We know how to look, though our sensing tech is obviously still feeble. Physics dictate observable things. Assuming other races haven't figured out how to get ahead of their transmission envelope and cancel it, it should out there. One of the first things aliens will see about us is quite literally Hitler. Those were some of our first radio broadcasts.
Lots of philoso
Re: (Score:2)
The universe has existed long enough for many many many civilizations to reach interstellar capability by now. We aren't special. We know how to look, though our sensing tech is obviously still feeble. Physics dictate observable things. Assuming other races haven't figured out how to get ahead of their transmission envelope and cancel it, it should out there. One of the first things aliens will see about us is quite literally Hitler. Those were some of our first radio broadcasts. Lots of philosophy to be sure, but physics (and the number of cases) dictate we'd see *something*.
Or we have zero clue what we're looking for, and will go out of our way to explain away any signs as "can't possibly be aliens." Based on physics alone, Oumuamua may not have been a naturally occurring object. Unless a naturally occurring object would change course and speed based on when it passed around the sun. But nobody can be taken seriously if they say it may not be natural, and anyone saying it may be alien in origin is laughed out of the conversation as a nutter.
We're naive fools when it comes to s
Re: (Score:3)
Biggest proof is that we haven't been exterminated.
I think they might let you survive ... for the entertainment factor /s
Re: (Score:2)
That is what the "seasoning" they refer to over my tinfoil-cap receiver means, no?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And people tell me that we know nothing about the aliens! We know three things about them : their mind-control-waves are detectable with a standard-pattern tinfoil-cap ; they respond to the electromagnetic force, and they've been to Col.Sanders (etc). That's a lot more than nothing.
But
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You just, but that's how science works....
No. Science is based on evidence. A radio emission from space is not evidence of aliens, no matter how much you need it to be. Your need for nonsensical escapism is born from your sense of inferiority, rejection and failure. You and people like you amuse me. Carry on.
Re: (Score:3)
He did t say it was evidence of aliens.
He said everything is possible until ruled out. That's part of how science works. It also requires hypothesis, theory and conjecture. Truth doesn't just pop up out of nowhere with some testable idea first.
Once again, AC proves clicking AC was the smart thing.
Re: (Score:2)
True and it is evidence of aliens, it is also evidence of every other not yet ruled out possibility which could explain the observation.
People love to toss around 'there is no evidence of...' but that is virtually never true. There might not be strong or conclusive evidence, there might be other possibilities which better fit the evidence but even wild speculation is at least going to be supported by whatever triggered that speculation.
In reality we've observed at least one alien species engage in behaviors
Re: (Score:2)
"A radio emission from space is not evidence of aliens, no matter how much you need it to be."
A radio emission from space is no more or less evidence of aliens than a physics defying neutron star or white dwarf. Any of the above is a perfectly plausible, normal and mundane possibility. Actually, the alien is more likely [given only the information in the summary]. We've never seen neutron star or white dwarf exhibit behavior that could explain this but we HAVE seen at least one alien lifeform do so... us.
Re: Mouth-breathing Alien-cucks ASSEMBLE!!!! (Score:2)
Humans are not aliens. Alien means strange, foreign. Not us.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a distinction of language and not relevant in this context. We know of at least one example of being capable of this behavior coming to exist, existing, and engaging in said behavior. Anything we've observed happen once is a more likely explanation than something we've never observed happen.
However, due to prejudice against that particular explanation we ignore probability and will instead try to find a way to adjust the mathematical model to account for it. Math is fairly flexible so we will almost
Re: Mouth-breathing Alien-cucks ASSEMBLE!!!! (Score:2)
We've also observed phenomena that seemed to defy the laws of nature as we understood them, and found that we didn't have the laws quite right. Or didn't measure the phenomenon right. So I would say there's nothing to say about this one yet other than we don't know.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree and since we can probably make the math work either way and continue nipping at the error margins forever we'll likely never know.
I'm just pointing out that all available evidence and observation supports the laws of nature as we know them, aliens requires nothing new or contrary to existing observation so Occam's razor says we should work from the assumption it is the ordinary claim of aliens [logically indistinguishable from as yet undiscovered new animal species] rather than the extraord
Re: (Score:2)
A radio emission from space is not necessarily evidence of aliens, ...
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
It's amazing that UFOs stopped visiting earth at the exact time everyone started carrying HD video cameras in their pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Then where have all the HD UAP videos come from?
Re: (Score:1)
^ This, if there is any conspiracy it is the disinformation spread to automatically discredit anyone who contemplates the possibility of aliens [statistically almost certain] and conspiracies [a definite fact of human existence and even the KNOWN PURPOSE of parts of our government].
I don't care if the ancient aliens are real or not. I don't see the possibility as even being particularly extraordinary, aliens would just be more animals and those are all around us. A perfectly mundane and natural process with
On optical? (Score:1)
Won't help. (Score:2)
We are the dark matter.
Re: (Score:2)
activating manual override and switching to optical now.
Re: (Score:1)
activating manual override and switching to optical now.
Don't forget to zoom in and enhance a few times
Re: (Score:2)
In astronomer speak : move to a different telescope. (Also the same answer for "zoom out".)
Similarly, use different instruments and/ or filters on those different telescopes.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they look on optical telescope?
No. They got signal. Then main screen turn on.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad they forgot to take off every zig. Now they have no chance to survive make their time.
Re: (Score:2)
[20 minutes reading time]
So there are about 4 pages on that topic. They make up about a third of the paper. Feel free to RTFP and find out what they say and why they say it. (My UnPayWall makes it trivial to get to the paper behind the paywall ; manually it is probably hidden. It is Nature, after all, despite the work being Open Access.)
53 minutes, you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the article seem to assume it's coming from a solo object? Orbiting another object could produce the 53-minute time variation. In fact:
Jun 20, 2023: "A binary pulsar in a 53-minute orbit" -
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Re:53 minutes, you say? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why does the article seem to assume it's coming from a solo object?
Because multiple objects can't produce the linear polarization that is observed.
Also having two objects together producing the circular polarization signal, plus a third object producing the linear polarization signal, should be producing two separate and different signals.
The odds of two systems, of three or more objects, physically near each other in space, producing two independent radio signals where all their properties match identically...
Well that would be one in(the number of objects in the known universe) odds. Which is a pretty good reason not to assume is the case.
Re: (Score:2)
> "producing two independent radio signals" ?
Why do you require that both objects are outputting similar signals?
I was imagining that one of the objects would be 'quiet', and we're detecting signals from the 'loud' one. As in the article I linked.
Re: 53 minutes, you say? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you do "Universal Pictures", you guide the beam using relative position changes to black holes.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does the article seem to assume it's coming from a solo object? Orbiting another object could produce the 53-minute time variation. In fact:
Jun 20, 2023: "A binary pulsar in a 53-minute orbit" -
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
LOL! Australia? I work at that facility and I like really hot coffee! So, I warm it up in the microwave! I need a coffee every 53 minutes to stay awake but even then I sometimes fall asleep and miss my cue.
This is so funny I am not going to tell anybody here, humans repeats the same mistakes all the time, see link below for proof:
https://theconversation.com/we... [theconversation.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know : just often enough to keep the white-coats uncertain.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems unlikely to me that an orbiting object(s) can cause a pulsar-like radio beam to aim at a certain direction every 53 minutes. Is there a way to wobble a neutron star so it happens? I can't visualize that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how pulsars work. They're not "wiggling" (or being wiggled). Their magnetic poles are offset from their rotation axis (just like Earth, Jupiter (I had to check - by 10 [degrees, Slash-fucked] ), Saturn (offset dipole), Uranus (it's complicated, because of the interference with the Sun's magnetic field, and the 98 inclination of rotation axis compared to orbital axis ; a
Re: (Score:2)
Because scientists baffled makes for a better story
Just highlights ... (Score:2)
... how we are just kinda making stuff up about radiation that falls on us.
We don't "know" what we think we know.
Sorry, my bad (Score:2)
I keep hitting snooze on my alarm clock radio.
I'll turn it off and get up now.
It seems like it's some kind of... (Score:1)
.. highly localized distortion of the space-time continuum.
Re: It seems like it's some kind of... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better do a tachyon sweep.
Sort of (Score:3)
Signals lasting 10 seconds or 50 seconds, or 370 milliseconds Linear, or circular polarization, or sometimes doesn't happen at all.
So maybe putting some cryptographers and their resources on this? Because the variety of signals just might be something other than a neutron star or white dwarf with wildly varying and incredibly slow rotation for such objects.
Re: (Score:2)
This is interesting stuff, but the headline claiming that the mysterious signal repeats every hour is just wrong. It has mixed types of signals and strengths, and sometimes doesn't repeat at all.
I understood that to mean that a cycle repeats every 53.8 minutes. That cycle is comprised of additional cycles that aren't as consistent, but whatever happens within that 53.8 minute timeframe, the whole process starts over again at the end of that first cycle.
Re: Sort of (Score:2)
They shouldn't be calling it a signal if it's just noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Morse code.
Dynamics of Thingummies, 2d. Ed. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, my wild guess is a white dwarf and a neutron star in a close orbit around each other.
Re: (Score:1)
Kamala, is that you?
"Defying explanation." (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. The line "it can't be explained by our current understanding of physics" is a sure sign of what kind of reporting this is.
Re: (Score:2)
As for astronomers being over-keen on TLAs for communicating with RoTW, well we can beat them ATOG!
Resonance (Score:1)
Aliens (Score:2)
not aliens (Score:2)
It's not aliens. It's Jesus sending us a message.
Unusual physics not equal to aliens (Score:2)
Actually this does prove that Aliens exist (Score:2)
Clickbait (Score:2)
Obligatory '3 body problem'... (Score:2)
Maybe we shouldn't answer the mysterious alien radio signal(s)? I mean if "nothing in nature could have caused it" then...
Re: Obligatory '3 body problem'... (Score:1)
Don't much care for that headline (Score:1)
Things that make you go hmmmmm⦠(Score:1)
Celestial Lighthouse (Score:2)
Could this be a celestial lighthouse warning of imminent danger in the area? An alien beacon similar to the lighthouses of yore? Ancient alien theorists say yes, and they point to newly discovered radio signals emanating from the center of the Moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, that would be a neat trick. I bet, considering the source, that it isn't what they describe it as, and won't click their bait triggers by attempting to research it. Ancient aliens liars, lying for profit. Film at eleven.
The range of ranges in TFP (I can't be bothered wasting effort by returning to TFS) is 4.3 to 5.4 kpc (so 12~15,000 light years, -ish), so ha
Not again (Score:2)
It's clearly a warning (Score:2)
Precession (Score:2)
The subject line says it all.
Not a singular object (Score:2)
Could just be a compact object like a pulsar with something orbiting it, like a dust cloud or another compact object.