Slashdot Mirror
SETI Project Scientist Discusses Prospects
An anonymous reader writes "Today Astrobiology Magazine interviewed SETI@home Project Scientist, Dan Wertheimer, about subjects including the first detailed 'best of SETI' candidate reobservations for repeating telescope acquisition on the most promising 166 star candidates. Their policy is not to release precise sky coordinates on the best ones yet (so far a signal called SHGb11+15a), with this type of Gaussian signal shape. The candidates number some 400 million Gaussians and 5.7 billion spikes."
How advanced would a civilization have to be to send out signals? A simple array of radio transmitters beaming out a simple message wouldn't be too hard to build.
And a physical object, however small, would take a lot longer than a radio message to reach another star.
boom boom boom
How does that follow? We've been sending signals into space ever since we started broadcasting radio and television and we don't have any usable nanotechnology.
Sending signals into space is fairly simple. building microscopic machines is not. I don't see how the presents of one means we should assume the existence of the other.
What can we possibly learn from a buncha backwaters critters still interested in such a primitive form of communication as radio?
-or-
What can THEY possibly learn from a buncha backwaters critters still interested in such a primitive form of communication as radio?
v.m
I have a "Zero Policy" tolerance.
*/
It amazes me that you can so quickly conclude that there is no life beyond earth, yet believe in a being that no one can prove even exists.
Seti keeps looking for easily discernable patterns in the signals they receive.
But look at what has happened here on earth as we moved toward digital communications. The more we compress the data, the more random it seems at first glance. I'll bet someone could prove that mathematically.
For example, consider the sound that a modem makes over the phone.
Also, to avoid interference when transmitting, signals are multiplexed over multiple wavelength. Again, I'll bet further technology improvements will make those future signals seem even more random to a current receiver.
In order to see through the apparent randomness in digital signals, you need to know how the signal is encoded.
Therefore, what SETI should be looking for are signals that, at first, appear as white noise. Then try to decode them.
By looking for simple patterns, like carrier waves, SETI will only be able to detect an advanced civilization for a period of around 50 years, and that's assuming that they start broadcasting signals that will reach space before they make the transition to digital.
We're not necessarily trying to find transmissions based on how we transmit, we're trying to find transmissions that don't look like background noise.
Even if you can't decode wavelet-encoded HDTV, it's certainly still going to be identifiable as a signal that didn't happen by accident.
steve
And when did having faith in something become the requirement for being a decent person living a respectable life?
SETI actually brings up a very interesting issue. So let's say they do find an alien civilization, would SETI get to copyright and patent the material that they gleen from the alien civilization?
Are you joking, I can't tell. If SETI finds conclusive proof of the existence of alien intelligence, I think the last thing on most of our minds will be copyright law.
I mean, it's like asking if Jesus comes back will he prefer Linux or BSD. The significance of the event so far outweighs the debate that the debate is rendered meaningless.
Yeti, angels and ley lines are at best, implausible. The idea of other intelligent life forms "out there" somewhere is at least *plausible* and therefore not the waste of time you seem to believe it to be. The degree to which energy/money is spent looking for it can be argued, but you can't say "never." It happened here, so it follows that it could happen elsewhere.
[ insert your own witty .sig here ]
Sorry to break the bad news, but you live in a world full of people. The first thing that will be on the minds of lawyers is how this affects law. The first thing on the mind of investors would be the effect on their portfolio. The first thing on the mind of politicians would be the effect on the next election and the first thing on the mind of the scientists will be who gets top billing on research paper and if their name is spelled correctly. The first thing on the mind of the avid /.ers is who will get first post, and will they get good karma in what will be lively thread. It will probably be that guy who welcomes evil overlords.
And, yes, I am joking about human nature, but realize that there will be profound effects on all of our fundamental theories of nature. BTW, I suspect that there are lawyers at SETI already thinking about this.
Yes :)
;-)
We can burn, rape and pillage as much as we want.
Steal, lie, and murder!
Genocide, baby......
As long as you have faith, you get to go to heaven anyways....
Isn't it good, to be a christian?
Note: I'm not......So I'd better be good
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Intelligent life is not "something to believe in." It is a mathematical and statistical near-certainty, given what is known about the size and composition of the universe.
Searching for yeti is like searching for a needle in haystack when you have no reason to believe that there is even a needle in it.
Searching for ET is like searching for a needle in a haystack that lies directly under the flight plan of a leaky needle-carrying cargo plane.
One of these has slightly better odds...
Now, since the conditions for the existence of each target are unknown and incalculable in these cases, you can't even compute a probability. Hence, I declare (according to our present knowledge and understanding) that all of these things DO NOT EXIST.
Yeah, because atoms didn't exist until we discovered them. Likewise, the sun really did revolve around the earth until we discovered otherwise. And disease was caused by bad spirits, and were nothing a good bleeding couldn't cure.
Yes, we can never prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns. As far as we know, the prerequisites for invisible pink unicorns (IPU) do not exist in this universe.
But we already have the evidence for one (marginally) intelligent species in the universe. Ergo, they exist, and we know the prerequisites for intelligent life also exist.
It would be extreme foolishness to claim there is no other intelligent life in the universe.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I think it's actually more likely than that that there was no parallel to our technological development cycle at all. They may, for example, have developed biology to such a point that they send actual engineered viruses rather than nanobots (eg: biological rather than technical) or maybe aquatics rather than air and space flight(and therefore not sending signals) or telepathic/hive mind so they wouldn't send signals...
Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
How did
"It amazes me that you can so quickly conclude that there is no life beyond earth, yet believe in a being that no one can prove even exists"
turn into
"And when did having faith in something become the requirement for being a decent person living a respectable life"
?
Interesting how you jump on him for attacking you, when in reality he was pointing out your inconsistant beliefs. He has a good point: Why can you so assuredly say that God exists, yet aliens don't? How can you back that up, without reffering to the bible?
It would be as stupid to believe in the non-existence of alien civilizations as it would be to believe in their existence, given present evidence. I prefer the more intelligent response: lacking evidence one way or the other, suspend judgement. Do they exist? I don't know. Do they not exist? I don't know.
Now let's take the scientific leap: how do we find out? Hey, I have an idea, let's look!
That's SETI in a nutshell. Unlike you, a lot of people think the best way to answer these questions is to take a look at the world and see what the evidence is, rather than make baseless asumptions one way or the other...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Actually, since it is not likely that the signal in question was sent in our direction on purpose, it might as well be an alien sitcom. ;-)
A civilization becomes noticable space-wise when it starts transmitting a lot of radiowaves. In case of Earthlings, this happened in 1940s-50s with the beginning of mass television broadcasts.
Imagine a sphere about 50 light-years in diameter rapidly expanding with I Love Lucy riding the wave up in front
If Jesus comes back and happens to make a slight positive comment regarding Linux, wouldn't you like to be holding some Red Hat stock at that moment?
Perhaps we should patent the "business process" of innovating by listening to and applying alien radio transmissions. That way you don't have to bother patenting any of the individual technologies.
-Graham
I was watching a documentary last night on the lack of evidence of either an Ark or of a great flood. Instead they found ample evidence of a string of myths all dealing with floods, going back thousands of years before the old testament. The idea is that the old testament was using a common myth to make a point, rather than actually describing an accurate history.
Anyways my point is this:
Besides this vague and over-used term 'faith', what reason would anyone have for taking the bible literally? How can we say that the 'god' they refer to isnt simply a metaphor they used to teach some good useful lessons?
And please, lets not spout of the mouth about how evil I am and instead focus on the issue I bring up.
*sigh*
No offense buddy, but it's Christians with attitudes like yours that give the rest of us a hard time.
From a Christian perspective, the Bible contains what *we* (human beings) need to know. No mention is given of alien life, but that does *not* mean that God has not created it. It means that their existence (or lack therefore) is inconsequential to the message that the Bible conveys. You are arguing from silence.