Slashdot Mirror


Ohio State SETI Wow Signal Revisited and Debunked

An anonymous reader writes "SETI's famous 1977 'Wow' signal has been discredited in the Astrophysical Journal, using the University of Tasmania Hobart 26 m radio telescope to search for intermittent and possibly periodic emissions at the 'Wow' locale. Of the many 'maybes' that SETI has turned up in its four-decade history, none is better known than the brief, powerful one that was discovered in August, 1977, in Columbus, Ohio. Marked by the signal's rise from zero, to '30-sigma' over background noise, and back to zero in 37 seconds, the famous Wow signal was found as part of a long-running sky survey conducted with Ohio State University's 'Big Ear' radio telescope. To quote from their article in The Astrophysical Journal, Robert Gray and Simon Ellingsen, of Australia's University of Tasmania, 'no signals resembling the Ohio State Wow were detected...' So until and unless the cosmic beep measured in Ohio is found again, the 'Wow' signal will remain a 'What' signal."

44 comments

  1. How does this debunk anything by shaka999 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So it went off the air...big deal. Maybe the little green men just left orbit....geesh.

    --
    One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    1. Re:How does this debunk anything by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Nothing like a little fluff before lunch...

    2. Re:How does this debunk anything by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      The "Wow" signal was actually harmful interference caused by the Zhti Ti Kofft test-firing their death ray.

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. after careful inspection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    i have determined the "Wow" signal to mean "First Post"

    this may actually be true. "Wow" was the first useful signal SETI received.

    1. Re:after careful inspection by jo42 · · Score: 1

      no, No, no

      They got it all wrong.

      It was a Ford Pinto exploding nearby that caused the glitch in the signal.

      Get with it...

  3. Maybe it was real by scumbucket · · Score: 1, Informative

    After all, what do we really know about what is out there is the farther reaches of the galaxy? It seems that as soon as something that might be credible is discovered, SETI just wants to slap it down.

    --
    CMDRTACO CHECK YOUR EMAIL!
  4. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've recently discredited people who claim there used to be a TV chanel 66 broadcasting in my area. I fliped my TV to 66, and there was no picture, therefore there was obviously never any such chanel.

    1. Re:In other news... by Gkeeper80 · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of an article about a "Creationist Science Fair". There are some really great science experiments here . I especially like the experiment "Women Were Designed For Homemaking". This kid is way too advanced for the 7th grade.

    2. Re:In other news... by synaptik · · Score: 1

      I especially like the experiment "Women Were Designed For Homemaking".

      Regarding the "lower center of gravity" portion of his argument... he's obviously never met my wife.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    3. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That is a very scary/funny website. It sounds exactly like what those wackos really say, yet it was too messed up to be true, but that's exactly what I think when I hear them for real. I finally found something on the website that convinces me it's a beautiful hoax. Here's what convinced me:
      However, my critics are overlooking the dangers of triclavianistic doctrines: allowing adiaphora to creep into our credenda -- while possibly pushing the theologoumenic envelope and providing exciting new opportunities for supererogative works -- will most often serve to muddy the soteriological foundation of Faith, leading in general to ultramontane excesses and, in extreme cases, ebaptization (which is unacceptable pastoral malpractice, however rare it may be.)

      Still, it's very scary. Thanks for the link.

    4. Re:In other news... by balbord · · Score: 1

      You forgot this one (and I quote):

      "Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism"

      I knew it!

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
    5. Re:In other news... by scrytch · · Score: 1

      > That is a very scary/funny website. It sounds exactly like what those wackos really say, yet it was too messed up to be true

      It in fact looks exactly like a cousin to the famous and outrageously funny Landover Baptist site. The article on the site that excoriates them just reinforces my suspicion that it's the same person or outfit.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    6. Re:In other news... by Squiffy · · Score: 1

      My favorites were "Pokemon Proves Evolutionism Is False" and "Using Prayer to Microevolve Latent Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria". Dear God, I want to win the science fair, so let the E. Coli in dish A die, but spare the ones in dish B. Thank you."

  5. Debunked? Try "Case strengthened." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'no signals resembling the Ohio State Wow were detected...'

    If they'd found some sort of a pulsar or something to be responsible for the burst, the case would have been debunked.

    But apparently they haven't, so they've only strengthened the case that something strange happened that day.

  6. WoW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's amazing how much fun you can have with a weather baloon and a radio transmitter.
    Next time I'll send prime numbers in base 14.

    1. Re:WoW by oni · · Score: 1

      what's the difference between a prime in base 10 and a prime in base 14 when transmitted via radio pulses of base 2?

    2. Re:WoW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to the "base 2" mentioned in Contact?

      That was base one.

    3. Re:WoW by stilwebm · · Score: 1

      You could use manchester encoding to change it to base 3 from pulses.

      3 states:
      No change in signal(low or high), signal moves to high, signal moves to low.

  7. Discredited? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 5, Informative

    ""SETI's famous 1977 'Wow' signal has been discredited in the Astrophysical Journal, using the University of Tasmania Hobart 26 m radio telescope to search for intermittent and possibly periodic emissions at the 'Wow' locale."

    Are submitters reading articles? There was no discrediting of the 'Wow' signal, just an indicator that they couldn't find it again.

    Discrediting is removal of importance. Discrediting is when a national leader claims a 45 minute launch capability for a middle-eastern nation that turns out to have nothing of the sort.

    --
    Oddly Draconis
    Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    1. Re:Discredited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only does the article clearly not "discredit" the signal, but a crucial number in the article is mis-stated ( duration was 72s not 37s ).

      Good job poster, good job editors.

      Did you notice how I kept irrelevant politics out of my post ?

    2. Re:Discredited? by TwistedGreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly.
      I don't see how you can call 'not finding anything similar' discredition.
      Discrediting something like that would happen if they DID find something similar, and someow deduced that it DIDN'T originate from intelligent life.

      But not finding something is no proof of its nonexistence. It still happened, and we still don't know what it was.

      Oh, and the article says the "Wow" signal spanned 72 seconds, not 37 seconds.

      I guess it's best not to even read the writeups anymore.

    3. Re:Discredited? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should do some research before you spout off.

      "Discrediting is when a national leader claims a 45 minute launch capability for a middle-eastern nation that turns out to have nothing of the sort."

      Post-Saddam Inspectors have visited just under 10% of the sites listed as highest priority by the military, and at those sites they have already discovered foreign made missiles (burried by the way), not to mention that an unclassified breifing of the Kay report indicates they have found:

      - Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD-variant missiles, a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi scientists have said they were told to conceal from the U.N.

      - Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km - well beyond the 150-km range limit imposed by the U.N. Missiles of a 1000 km range would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets throughout the Middle East, including Ankara, Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    4. Re:Discredited? by John+Biggabooty · · Score: 1
      They knew the "wow" signal was a hoax once they ran it through a language computer, and translated it.

      It said, "Gentlemen: All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha ha!"

      --
      That's Bigboo TAY! TAY!
    5. Re:Discredited? by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "Maybe you should do some research before you spout off."

      I do snookums. Nothing you mentioned seemed to indicate that Iraq could have fueled and launched in a 45 minute window, and smacked of high irrelevency, not to mention 'AC'. Just to take some of your things on board;

      "a capability that was maintained at least until the end of 2001"

      Dude, it's 2003. Note the double curly bit that indicates an integer at least two above the one.

      "Plans and advanced design work for new long-range missiles with ranges up to at least 1,000 km"

      I have the build specs for the fatman nuclear bomb dropped over Japan in 1945. Do have a 45 minute launch window?

      No.

      So next time you have a moment, go back over the speeches made by Tony Blair and ask yourself if anything stated there was false. Hindsight says yes; public opinion says yes; confidence ratings say yes, and it's likely the man will not see another term of office. He's been discredited.

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
  8. Debunked my ass by kalidasa · · Score: 4, Informative

    The work the scientists of this study have done is important and valuable, but don't overplay it: it merely limits the possibilities of what the Wow signal was a bit more than was previously thought. After all, there are no signals that have ever been transmitted/emitted from Earth that would have met the periodicity/duration criteria built into this test.

    We conclude that the Wow was not due to a source within our flux density limits and repeating more often than every 14 hr, although the possibility of a longer period or nonperiodic source cannot be ruled out.

    In other words, what they proved is that the Wow signal was not an intententional interstellar beacon, or if it was such a beacon, it is now off the air: whatever the Wow signal was, it wasn't aliens sending a galactic hailing signal, or if it was, it is on a longer period than 14 hours, or was shut off in the years between the original Wow signal's emission and the date of current signals from that location.

  9. Rather, "Discredited my ass" by kalidasa · · Score: 1

    Sorry, somehow I s/discredited/debunked/ .

  10. Re:To His Excellency Lord Vogon: by orthogonal · · Score: 1

    Obviously this is a forgery!

    A hoax!

    Please mod the parent down! Serious Slashdot articles should not be befouled with this obvious tripe!

    No one could seriously beleive that the Field Commander of an advanced race stealthily taking over the Earth could possibly get confused as to which window he was typing in and accidently post revealing Alien internal memoranda on Slashdot, when he meant to Hyper-Email it to his Supreme Lord. Inconceivable! We, that is hypothetical Aliens are too advanced to such mistakes!

    Obviously the parent article should be ignored by all rational humans!

  11. So what's new about this, exactly? by Lendrick · · Score: 1

    I'm not entirely clear what new conclusions these people have reached. I was under the impression that there was always some question about the Wow Signal for exactly the reasons mentioned.

  12. Debunking? by hey! · · Score: 1

    Probably the biggest question is why the second receiver did not get the signal.

    We are pretty much left to weigh two imponderables: the probability that there was a terrestrial signal of exactly 72 seconds, or the probability that we happened to have caught the instant at which a powerful extraterrerial signal.

    Of the two coincidences, I'm inclined to consider the terrestrial interference as the more likely.

    The "debunking" seems to me a lot less convincing than the fact tha the second receiver did not pick up a continued transmission. At best it rules out a signal issuing from a single point on a planet with a short rotation period.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  13. "Big Ear" telescope and Perkins Observatory by srstoneb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have a vested, sentimental interest in these places so I'm going to plug them:

    The Big Ear telescope, operated by Ohio State University, was built on the grounds of Perkins Observatory, between Columbus and the town of Delaware. Delaware is the location of my alma mater, Ohio Wesleyan University, which owns and operates Perkins as a public outreach center. (OSU used to have some financial involvement, but pulled out a few years ago.) In other words, Perkins is no longer a research observatory: it is entirely dedicated to educating the public about astronomy and allowing people to look through their telescopes. (In other words, it's awesome.)

    For a couple years after Big Ear had stopped being used it just stood there on the property. I remember taking a walk around the grounds in 1998 with a friend, peaking in the windows of the little building with the control room, filled with junk. It was sort of sad to see it so neglected. Even worse, the land on which it sat had been sold by my school to the neighboring golf course. We actually ran into a golfer while we were there, and he took the time to tell us how much he wished they would tear the telescope down so they could extend the driving range. And not too long afterwards, it happened. Big Ear is gone.

    There's some really great stories to tell about Hiram Perkins, too, but I don't want to ramble on too long... The short version: Perkins Obs. was the second observatory he built, and at the time it was completed, it housed the third largest telescope in the world. That telescope, now with an even bigger mirror, lives at Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, but was still owned by Ohio Wesleyan until around the time I graduated (1998) when OWU sold it completely to Lowell. It's now operated jointly by Lowell and Boston University, which happens to be where I went after OWU. I took two trips out there to use it before I got my masters in astronomy and left BU to come back to Ohio.

    Here's a few links to entertain you:

    If you live anywhere near Columbus, I highly recommend visiting Perkins sometime. They have great facilities and a fantastic staff. It's a great way to spend an evening.

    1. Re:"Big Ear" telescope and Perkins Observatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Fscking golfers. Big Ear was cool. The guys from the ham club used to use it for a ground plane with a short vertical during some 160 meter contests. The director at the time (Bob Dixon) is a ham radio operator, and probably the oldest geek I know.

  14. Meanwhile, at the Wow location... by Dr.+Photo · · Score: 2, Funny

    Vorbak: Gleebok, quit leaning on the "transmit" button... they'll hear you!
    Gleebok: Yipes!

    [At this point, their civilization is wiped out by a pod of radio-hating space-slugs. Who then turn their attention on the last remaining radio-transmitting civilization in the galaxy...]

  15. matrix-esq by ee_moss · · Score: 2, Funny

    Did anyone else notice that the Wow Signal looks strangely like the Matrix?

    That's plain creepy, if you ask me.

    1. Re:matrix-esq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, see, the whole thing was just a glitch in the Matrix. It's past your bedtime. Goodnight.

  16. Debunked? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "So until and unless the cosmic beep measured in Ohio is found again, the 'Wow' signal will remain a 'What' signal."

    That doesn't sound like they disproved the signal ever happened.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Debunked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "On 10-21-03 I defeated a self-proclaimed master troll."

      Damn that horrible date formatting.

    2. Re:Debunked? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Would 10-21-2003 be better?

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Debunked? by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      No, 21-10-2003 would be better. Go in the right order of units, smallest to largest.

      Or really dates should be formatted like time is, largest to smallest units, 2003-10-21.

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    4. Re:Debunked? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I always wondered why the date is often ordered like that in some places. Learned something new today, thank you.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  17. Re:To His Excellency Lord Vogon: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Obviously the parent article should be ignored by all rational humans!"
    hah, it seems the slashdot crowd concurs.

    this was actually not bad though, not bad at all

  18. Why is this news? by perljon · · Score: 1

    People have been watching the WOW location since 1977, and it is common knowledge no new signals have be detected since the original blip. This isn't news.

    --
    This isn't the sig you are looking for... Carry on...
  19. Other possibility by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    I wonder could the "WOW" signal be what you we detect when two governments on some alien planet decided that they could not trust each other, so they launched all their nuclear weapons.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  20. 72 seconds out of??? by j_w_d · · Score: 1

    There are far too many imponderables to say much about the signal. For one, how other arrays were looking at that part of the sky during the 24 hour period that prededed the detection? Rather than cathing the "instant" they might have caught 72 seconds out of the last 112 or whatever. The signal could have been up for an hour before the array came onto bearing and died as it passed. Because it wasn't detected by the second "beam" doesn't make it impossible, just unlikely. Because we don't know the actual time the real signal lasted, we can't even say how unlikely that might have been.

    The original poster's use of "discredit" and "debunked" are rash. There was no use of those words in the cited article. Nor was there any reason to do so. No accidental terrestrial source was likely. The signal strength argues against that. If the researchers had said they discovered a hoaxster who had visited the array with a transmitter capable faking the apparent signal, that would be "debunking" or "discrediting" it. As it is, who knows anything?

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.