What is Digg?115 Comments
- MemoryDump, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48WOW.. an article not about WoW
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+30"Perhaps. But consider that when humankind used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message out into space in 1974, it was only sent once."
reading the whole article might help... - xutopia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26I hate it when someone says "unexplainable". It isn't unexplainable, it is as of yet *unexplained*.
Have faith... :-P - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28Succesfultitude, isn't it?
SETI is a bit of a waste of time - it would have to be someone deliberately aiming a massively powerful signal directly at us with the intent of saying "HELLO!" if SETI were to pick it up.
When SETI began, the idea was that any advanced civilisation would, as a matter of course, emit loads of radio waves because of broadcasting, comms networks and the like. In the last few years, however, we ourselves have stopped radiating noticeable signals almost entirely, because broadcasting has started switching over to compressed (and often encrypted) streams. This means that even if someone picked up the Fox News channel on Beta Centauri IV or wherever, they wouldn't be able to tell it was a signal unless they had a working knowledge of TV protocol stacks, mpeg compression and the like. Probably just as well, Fox News might well get us off on a bad foot.
Similarly, the amount of overall broadcasting is less than it was, with cable and satellite TV and short range comms like mobile phones becoming prevalent over big radio masts pumping out major wattage.
Therefore, we can say that a typical civilisation might only go through a window of about 50 years in which it is easily detectable, before it becomes indistinguishable from a great distance against background radiation.
Bad luck, Mr Sagan. - Calypsoaf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+20All I have to say is 6EQUJ5.
- Greyarea, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Hammydude: read the article. At the bottom it says:
----
"Even if it were intelligent beings sending a signal," he said in an interview, "they'd do it far more than once. We should have seen it again when we looked for it 50 times."
Perhaps. But consider that when humankind used the Arecibo radio telescope to send a message out into space in 1974, it was only sent once.
---- - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15"The Big Ear maintained its periodic scan of that part of space for almost forty years, and never again came across such a compelling signal. It was dismantled in 1998 to make way for a golf course."
There's progress for you... :( - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18So you think it's possible to explain, for instance, the draw of Kevin Federline to some people? Some things really are just unexplainable!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Some of us had never heard of it, so thx to jlabs.
- cavendoja, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Good stuff. It's amazing we haven't picked anything else up with all of the new SETI installations going in. Perhaps the "WOW!" signal was from somewhere much like Earth, sending signals out like we are, that happened to align at that point in time and place in 1977...
- Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Get off digg.
Now. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11um...yes it is actually
- stupidStan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@raabco
but radio signals do not resemble guns in any way... radio signals are not focused, otherwise WDIK or whatever radio station you listen to would have to 'aim' at everyones house and MOVING CAR...
Your analogy makes absolutely no sense. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12No, it doesn't.
It does say something about the number of civilizations in the nearest few lightyears sending powerful radio signals aimed directly at earth, though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8'Lack of evidence of intelligent life' does not equate to 'evidence of lack of intelligent life'
- vmerc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@gklitt
Not really. What it does say is something about our universe. When it comes to basic science you can't determine that a project "failed" because a specific result is not obtained. - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Besides, the signal was at a frequency nobody uses - seem to remember it was something like the natural frequency of hydrogen (or some multiple), suggesting it's unlikely to be a bounce from Earth. Even if it was a bounce, what did it bounce off? Nothing in that direction for light years. On the other hand, that itself would suggest that if it was sent from the nearest star in that direction, the signal would have to be ridiculously powerful at source.
Intriguingly, one possibility is that it could have been some kind of object moving along at high speed but fairly close to us, which would explain the strength of the signal and the non-repetition. But Occam's razor says that it was probably just a freak. - Lone1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Imagine a race somewhere in our galaxy sending out signals in an attempt to contact others. They might devise a strategy of sending a focused signal to individual planets or solar systems to get their attention. Because of the number of planets they can only send once to each over a great period of time. This may seem like a drawback but really its not because if the receiving race is not able to detect the signal easily and be sure it is a signal from a certain point in space then they are not going to be able to detect weaker signals and/or send a return signal and actually communicate. Kinda of an interstellar Darwinism. Also, the signal may trigger the ability when the receiving race decides to rise to the challenge. Maybe our planet has been hit with this signal once every thousand or 10 thousand years.
I'd be afraid to do the math ;) - rorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@stupidStan
Electromagnetic radiation can certainly be directional: lasers are highly directional, flashlights somewhat less so. Cell phone towers radiate more horizontally than vertically. It's also much more energy efficient if you want to send a signal in a particular direction. - st23am, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"why do we always assume that extraterrestrial life is more advanced than us. Isnt it possible that we're one of the pioneers of existence? That we may be the one of the first civilization in the universe?"
Because if we were, that would be kind of depressing seeing how we are completely and Amazingly adept at being self destructive. - Blizaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6that would make a great license plate!
- markperia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7why do we always assume that extraterrestrial life is more advanced than us. Isnt it possible that we're one of the pioneers of existence? That we may be the one of the first civilization in the universe?
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It has been... precedented
/colbert - Andrewmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Speak for yourself.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@jambox: you're confusing "impossible to read" with "impossible to detect". Two different things.
It is completely irrelevant to the SETI project whether the content is encrypted or not, it's still a detectable radio signal. - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When I see a story on Digg about something I already know about, I always log on and tell everyone how smart I am.
Ponce. - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4ah, reminds me of my favourite wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox - mrchin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Too bad there's no audio. I searched but came up with no link to the actual sound. Would be good to hear it. Wonder if they actually recoreded it?
- banderbe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah man! And Bush and Cheney are behind the 9/11 attacks too, right?
What about the Freemasons? Illuminati?
Check your teeth I can hear your thoughts. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5OK... jambox, it's OK to disagree with me, but once I've explained that what SETI is looking for is a signal, *any* signal, which can not be explained by natural sources like, say, pulsars, then you're supposed to agree with me that it is irrelevant if the message encoded in the signal is encrypted or not.
Failure to do so would force me to digg you down for being thick, because you've then said that an encoded radio signal is impossible to detect. - erikjernberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Uh oh! Someone has been watching Contact on repeat, and for once it isn't me :)
- raabco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The age of the universe is one reason.
The size of it is another.
Basically the same reasons we assume that there's actually any extraterrestrial life out there in the first place.
edit: jambox won - member57, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It was built and scanning the skies BEFORE 1977, the Big Ear didn't just snap into existence the second it received the signal.
So much for intelligent life here on Earth.. - cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3here ya go. Google Cache.
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.bigear.org/6equj5.htm
i was interested to find out as well. =) - LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I would say that the surest sign of intelligent life out there is that it hasn't bothered with our so called civilization. I bet tere is a giant quarantine set up around our solar system. ;)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@thebarge: The reason it has to be very powerful or very close is that the listening devices aren't all that sensitive, absolutely speaking. I can't find documentation right now, but I believe it's stated they'd be able to detect a civilization emitting radio/TV signals like the earth has done the last 50 years up to a maximum of roughly 10 light years. Further than that it'd have to be an immensely strong and intensely focussed radio signal, targeted straight at Earth, or Arecibo etc wont pick it up.
Quoting from Wikipedia: "For us to detect an alien civilization 100 light years away that is broadcasting "omnidirectionally", that is, in all directions, the aliens would have to be using a transmitter power equivalent to several thousand times the entire current power-generating capacity of the entire Earth."
This, that the listening devices aren't anywhere near sensitive enough to detect "accidental" broadcasts, is an excellent reason why the SETI project has not, and is unlikely to, find alien civilizations, even if they're commonplace. - TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@jambox
"SETI is a bit of a waste of time - it would have to be someone deliberately aiming a massively powerful signal directly at us with the intent of saying "HELLO!" if SETI were to pick it up."
And why would it have to be "massively powerful" as you put it? All it has to do is be powerful enough to escape Earth's atmosphere.
"we ourselves have stopped radiating noticeable signals almost entirely, because broadcasting has started switching over to compressed (and often encrypted) streams."
The fact that it's compressed or encrypted means absolutely nothing. We're not trying to decrypt the message or figure out exactly what it says, just that it's a signal of extraterrestrial origin.
"Similarly, the amount of overall broadcasting is less than it was, with cable and satellite TV and short range comms like mobile phones becoming prevalent over big radio masts pumping out major wattage."
Really? I have about 8 different channels available in my area that I use with an antenna all the time. We're still broadcasting using tons of major wattage. Check out OTA HD channels. Free, and in sweet HD quality, and better than what's offered by DirecTV's "HD-lite." - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4well it's entirely possible but unlikely, given the age of the universe is in billions of years and our civilisation is less than 5,000 years old.
Most likely is that there are loads of better developed civs, and a few less well developed. Unless, of course, civilisations tend to only last for a relatively short period. I mean, we've nearly done ourselves in enough times! Could be that plenty of civs get as far as us and then destroy themselves (or are destroyed by someone else), in which case we'd be the daddies... for a while. - raabco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+32 words for the Fermi paradox:
Prime Directive - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3No, THIS is another mars face...
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9903/marshappyface_mgs_big.jpg - ekso, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now I really would like a duggmirror of this:
http://www.bigear.org/6equj5.htm - ThePict, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@MattL920
"If we look at enough signals for long enough, eventually one will pop up that seems like a message"
The significance of the Wow signal was the strength of the signal, it was not a message. In order to find the message, you'd have to go back and read the data received - but the Wow signal only shows that they received an unexpectedly STRONG signal. - judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Good info also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow%21_signal - aphexcoil, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5WE GET SIGNAL!!!
- cwcheang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not without a reason really. The probability of an alien civilization to have develop at the same time and with the same rate as us is next to none given all the extreme variables in evolution etc...(a few thousand years of advanced human in a time span of billions of years?)
So an alien civilization can only be either extremely behind or way way beyond us in terms of technological advancements... it will never be the same (a difference of just another few thousand years, which is nothing astrologically speaking, is enough to make a huge difference.. just look at us) .. Therefore if we ever detect any extra-terrestrial signals, a sign of developed intelligence, they are most probably very ahead of us already..
I cannot put this very well, i heard it from a documentary on discovery the other day, where a scientist explained it far better.. but you get the idea.. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Who would digg down the dugg mirror?
- Heiios, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ahhhhhh, priorities....
"The Big Ear maintained its periodic scan of that part of space for almost forty years, and never again came across such a compelling signal. It was dismantled in 1998 to make way for a golf course." - MattL920, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6While it would be cool if this were a real signal from an intelligent source, the most likely explanation is that it's just monkeys at a typewriter. If we look at enough signals for long enough, eventually one will pop up that seems like a message
- greyfade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@raabco:
That's such a glaringly mistaken view of how RF propagation works, I just have to chime in.
Radio propagation, just like any other light wave, follows the inverse square law. signals become weaker as they move out from the signal source (the antenna) because the energy is spread out, as like a baloon expanding. The signal is attenuated by the square of the distance that it travels. (The precise formula for dB loss escapes me at the moment.)
A receiving antenna, on the other hand, occupies one mathematical point in the propagation area. The simplest antenna needs not be reoriented. It will pick up a signal given that its intensity is greater than that of background radiation. The type of antenna used by SETI, et. al., is a high-gain type, highly directional. Given that the precise sky position of the signal was known, these highly directional dish types can be directed very precisely in the direction of the signal's origin. It need not be so precise, but higher precision means higher gain, and higher gain means more signal clarity.
It's nothing like pointing a gun randomly. Quite the contrary. It's more like pointing binoculars or a telescope in search of a signal light on the distant horizon. As long as you know where to look, pinpointing it and getting a clear view of it is trivial. - Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2However, since it wasn't found to be repeated later on, and ridiculously strong, it's likely to be of human origin and reflected back by some freak coincidence. :-(
-
Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 