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."

50 of 384 comments (clear)

  1. I wish they would release the data by Space+cowboy · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd love to give it a go with my very own personal radio telescope (dish.jpg). Sure it'd be hard to point, and maybe not possible to receive anything at all, but I'd like to try :-)

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
    1. Re:I wish they would release the data by Space+cowboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, it's a real radio telescope - they're pretty simple beasts really. Big dish, tuned receiver at the right frequency (or a frequency-converter, and a normal radio receiver), and a computer at the other end.

      I use a WinRadio (despite the name, it's a universal box :-) external receiver tuned to the Water Hole frequencies (the gap between the OH line and the H2 line in the radio spectrum, at around 1420 MHz - pretty typical for radio astronomy, it's a relatively quiet part of the spectrum.

      Simon

      --
      Physicists get Hadrons!
    2. Re:I wish they would release the data by jridley · · Score: 4, Informative

      In fact, you don't even need a dish. The first radio telescopes were just dipoles. You can google around and find tons of descriptions of how to build radio telescopes on the cheap. It's particularly easy now with computers interfaced to radios.

  2. Have we picked up any good alien sitcoms yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because the networks haven't been putting out anything but complete and utter crap. Maybe some alien crap will be better.

    1. Re:Have we picked up any good alien sitcoms yet... by silverhalide · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why does not Ross, the largest of the "Friends" simply devour the others?!

  3. An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by civilengineer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He says in his book "Age of Spiritual Machines" that if aliens existed and were advanced enough to send us signals, they would in all probability have mastered the use of nano-technology and could probably fit a lot of things into extremely small spaces. So, if they actually wanted to probe earth, they might be sending in virus sized particles which we might not be detecting at all. A very novel idea, considering our view of aliens has been more in terms of flying saucers and ET etc.

    --

    New year Resolution: Don't change sig this year
    1. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by trinitrotoluene · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by JustAnotherReader · · Score: 5, Insightful
      if aliens existed and were advanced enough to send us signals, they would in all probability have mastered the use of nano-technology

      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.

    3. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by Viking+Coder · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The problem with signals is that they're passive. The civilization doesn't gain ANY information by sending signals - only by receiving them. =)

      A physical object (the size of a pea?) could be sent very close to the speed of light - so I don't see that as a problem. What, 90%? Maybe even more?

      But it'd be a pretty amazing technology, indeed, if such a small object were capable of sending back any data to the home system. It'd take a tremendous amount of energy for such a small transmitter to be effective over such distances.

      Right?

      Actually, I guess repeaters could do it. You send out a chain of the pea transmitters, and have them repeat info back along the line. Shoot them out a minute apart, and the signal only needs to be strong enough to be detected at a range of about a light minute. Still, a crazy distance, but a heck of a lot easier than 20+ light-years. Granted, you'd have to send them out for about 100 years - at a pea per minute. Hmmm...

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    4. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It's based on our assumptions about the rate of progress of technology. If we assume that nanotechnology is 50-100 years off from practical usage, then we can reasonably state that for our culture and society, the gap between developing radio signals strong enough to send to space in detectable amounts and developing nanotechnology is only about 150-200 years worth of technological development. Assuming that other species rate of technological progress is similar to ours, we can assume that their gap between development of radio wave transmission and nanotechnology is similar, perhaps 200 years worth of technological development.


      The argument from there relies on the fact that 200 years is a drop in the bucket in cosmological time - just because we happen to be at this particular point in time developmentally doesn't really imply that other species and cultures would be at anywhere near the same point. So it's far more likely they'd either be too primitive to send radio waves, or advanced enough that they have viable nanotechnology.


      Obviously, this argument assumes that nanotechnology is practicable and will be successfully developed in the next 100 years. :)

    5. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by mprinkey · · Score: 5, Informative

      A "pea" travelling at 90% of the speed of light contains a lot of kinetic energy. Say, 0.01 grams for the pea at 2.7e8 m/s. That works out to 7.3e11 J. That is about the same energy as exploding 175 tons of TNT per pea.

      Set aside the issue of engineering the "peashooter" to fire them, you are talking about throwing some potentially destructive material at a neighboring star system. Firing them continuously looks like you intentially want to hit something. I think this might be a bad idea from a "just saying hello" viewpoint.

    6. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by 4of12 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      probability have mastered the use of nano-technology

      The thought occurs that we might be the ping packet.

      Send out a clump of amino acids, hope some land in favorable water, then wait.

      We're expected to return electromagnetic waves if and when we're successfully "done" and where we are.

      Not sure what to expect of traffic after that, though.

      The second ping could be a doozy.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    8. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by Drantin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)
    9. Re:An excellent point from Ray Kurweil by Pastey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Or it could be that there are no aliens in the universe because God didn't create them. In fact, if He had created them, it would have said so in the Bible. So SETI is nothing but a waste of time. Why grope around in the dark when we have the Truth right here in this Book?

      *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.


  4. Wanna bet... by r_j_prahad · · Score: 4, Funny

    It'll probably turn out to be an alien goatse when they finally get it decoded.

    1. Re:Wanna bet... by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 5, Funny

      It'll probably turn out to be an alien goatse when they finally get it decoded.

      <Marvin the Martian>
      Where was the blood-curdling scream? There was supposed to be an "Ahhh! My Eyes!!!" scream!
      </Marvin the Martian>

      --

    2. Re:Wanna bet... by Maax · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Oh my god, it's full of .... EEEUUUUWWWWWWW!!!"

  5. I used to run seti@home by hookedup · · Score: 5, Interesting

    for a long time, being a windows user, I of course used the screensaver version to do the math. However, it's come to my attention that using the command line makes for better efficiency, less CPU devoted to nice graphs, more CPU for crunching numbers. I read somewhere it was between 5-10% faster. Anyway, just a heads up for you seti folk running windows who want to squeeze a few more results out in a day :)

    1. Re:I used to run seti@home by QuasiCoLtd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Try upwards of 25%! On my 1.6GHz Win XP machine with screen saver client it would take approx. 20 hours for one WU. With command line that number is reduced to 4 hours. I haven't tested a pure Linux command line yet (no X server running).

  6. intelligent beings from other galaxies using radio by Savatte · · Score: 5, Funny

    damn, i didn't think clearchannel had THAT much influence

  7. This is like monkeys trying to figure out books. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Forget it. They're laughing at us. We're trying to find transmissions based on how we'd transmit data now. We're looking for smoke signals from civilizations that use Wavelet enncoded HDTV. We're trying to find cizilizations similar to our own; intellegent species have probably advanced way beyond some local interplanetary WIFI model. They're probably chuckling at our feeble attempts right now. Chuckling in their own vieny large headed kind of way. Puny humans.

  8. Let's say we find somebody out there. by kutuz_off · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What will be the next step after we detect a signal?

    1. Re:Let's say we find somebody out there. by michrech · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why, of course we'll decode it. Then, we'll find the instructions to build a capsule of some sort. Well, of course all the governments will go bankrupt (or very close) building it for it to get sabotaged by some idiot. Then, an odd and insanely rich person will decide to build one in secret so that they can carry out the test... wait.. I think I've seen this all somewhere before...

      --
      bork bork bork!
    2. Re:Let's say we find somebody out there. by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      After we get signal, you ask?

      Main screen turn on, of course.

      --
      I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  9. Re:Did I find one? by zeux · · Score: 5, Informative

    They do.

    here.

    Click on each of the signals.

  10. Radio? Radio?!? by Volatile_Memory · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    */

  11. Re:Let's say we find their website by doorbot.com · · Score: 5, Funny

    What will be the next step after we detect a signal?

    Clearly, we will /. them into oblivion!

  12. Audible spectrum by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    The study also mentioned that they processed the radiotelescope signal to extract the audio component. Listen to SHGb11+15a.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  13. big number by tjw · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:
    The number of stars in the visible universe, for instance, is estimated to be 70 sextillion, or 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 [seven followed by twenty-two zeros].
    • one hundred billion times the number of letters in the 14 million books in the Library of Congress
    Whew, I'm glad that got quantified in standard LoC units.
    --

    XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-UB E-TEST-EMAIL*C.34X
  14. Copyright on the Data by yintercept · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    Could we use any of the alien stuff as prior art to refute patent claims we don't like?

    Considering the amount of money at stake, I have no doubt the SETI lawyers will play the SCO game and resist any actually release of data.

    1. Re:Copyright on the Data by molafson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Copyright on the Data by DaneelGiskard · · Score: 4, Funny

      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.

      Well, as long as he does not prefer Windows - I tend to agree. ;)

    3. Re:Copyright on the Data by yintercept · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Copyright on the Data by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Funny

      And if he does we can always just have him nailed to a cross or something...

      I'm just kidding! We're talking about Linux users here, not a bunch of zealo...oh, wait...

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    5. Re:Copyright on the Data by DirtyJ · · Score: 4, Funny

      You say that now, but wait until SCO claims prior art on anal probing.

    6. Re:Copyright on the Data by kramer · · Score: 4, Informative

      No.

      You can't copyright something you didn't write. Not counting works for hire and such -- but if they're claiming that they have aliens in far away galaxies working for them, they've got worse problems than copyright infringement.

  15. Re:Alien Technology and Communication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    > If Aliens were trying to communicate with use why wouldn't they use radio/tv signals that would get out attention.

    Well, that would explain Ally McBeal.

  16. Re:This is like monkeys trying to figure out books by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  17. used to do it. found better causes by kippy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've contributed over 5000 work units to SETI and even found one of those "interesting" signals. I stopped a while ago. Why? a few reasons:

    1. I realized that the amount of time a civilization would use anything recognizable over radio waves would probably be pretty short. From the invention of radio until every signal is compressed and/or encrypted would probably be a few hundred years at best. compressed and encrypted data would just look like noise and probably wouldn't stand out. So it's either no-radio or unintelligible radio signals for billions of years with a small "hearable" window. not too promising that we'd be able to catch that.

    2. There are better or at least more interesting causes out there for CPU donators. Folding@home has the potential to contribute to a nanotechnological or medical revolution. United Devices is a project to test cancer drugs and the results go to Oxford in case you're wondering about the for-profit nature of the company behind it. Finaly, the climate prediction project is contributing to a better understanding of planetary climate dynamics.

    My side interest is Mars exploration and terraformation which is a pretty much just consists of reading literature on the subject. However, with contributing to nanotech, cancer drugs and climate prediction, I am making a small dent in the effort to adapt both ourselves and technology to making a new world.
    I realize that last part was a bit offtopic but I thought I'd at least give a little reasoning behind why I choose to run those ones.

  18. 4.7 million users? by skurk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Running a little off-topic here, but I feel I need to quote this from the article:

    SETI@home is now our planet's largest supercomputer, averaging 60 teraflops, thanks to 4.7 million SETI@home volunteers in 226 countries.

    Three years ago I created one extra seti account by mistake, for which I processed 3 packets.

    According to the seti@home individual user stats page, this account has processed more packets than 46.361% of their users.

    I wonder if they count the idle and non-active user accounts when they claim 4.7 million users?

    If not, it's probably safe to exclude about 50% of that user mass.

    --
    www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
  19. Why they don't release the co-ordinates by wackybrit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nothing in these stories specify why they're not releasing the co-ordinates yet, and I thought Slashdot readers might be particularly interested in this.

    I work at a computer lab which is used by a branch of a certain space agency (not NASA, but they have similar policies) and we process a lot of data for these folks (It's a bit like SETI@Home, but we get what are called the 'higher level' packets, given only to accredited packets of ramen.)

    When you're dealing with signals from large distances (over a few thousand miles) you need a lot of gain on your aerial to get a strong signal. This is why they use giant dishes at places like Aribico, because the largeness of dish allows the signal to be taken and magnified when it gets here, so you get a clearer signal from a noisy signal (for the non scientific people here.. it's like how in CSI they can zoom in a noisy picture and 'clean it up' or look round corners and stuff).

    Well, this high gain aerial 'sucks up' (again, non science speak) a lot of the signal. This means if they gave out the co-ordinates everyone would try to listen in to the stuff coming from that area, and diminish all of the signal so that SETI couldn't pick up anything even on their big aerials. It's kinda like how if a radio station has more listeners, they have to turn the signal up.. but we can't tell the aliens to do that!

    The same thing happens with light, but to a lesser extent. Theoretically if you had a million people looking at a single LED, the light would be so spread out that it would appear to go off. This is why, as children, we're told not to look at the sun, because if we all did that, we would be plunged into darkness.

    Anyway, I hope that cleared it all up.

  20. Re:SETI will never find anything by 23skiddoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ]

  21. Re:SETI is looking for the wrong thing by ShieldWolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Therefore, what SETI should be looking for are signals that, at first, appear as white noise. Then try to decode them.

    That is single-handidly the dumbest thing they could do.

    The sky is ABSOLUTELY FILLED with white noise. Nature is random, that is the whole point of looking for NON-random signals; they suggest intelligence at work.

    Another point is that we are not just looking for signals that are essentially radio-pollution from another civilization, we are looking for DELIBERATE signals from a society trying to communicate with us. Why would they encrypt or otherwise obfuscate those signals?!?!

    --
    just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
  22. Correlation? by BallPeenHammer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm curious about whether there's any correlation between the signals they find most "interesting" and the locations of known extrasolar planets. I'd say if any of the interesting signals come from a place with planets, it has to be significant.

  23. Re:SETI is looking for the wrong thing by stwrtpj · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Therefore, what SETI should be looking for are signals that, at first, appear as white noise. Then try to decode them.

    Other than this being like looking for the needle in the proverbial haystack, this is not what is behind the SETI project. SETI works under the assumption that someone out there is beaming a signal into space with the express intent of being discovered. A civilization attempting to do such a thing would attempt to make the signal as unambiguous as possible, at least the initial "greeting" message. This is why "Contact" used the plot device of having the initial signal be pulsed to represent the first few prime numbers. The idea behind it was that certain mathematical concepts are universal, and this would be a clear indication that there is an intelligence behind it.

    --
    Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
  24. Reverse Radio telescope? by jhines · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know what the overall earth looks like? in the radio spectrum at least.

    Have we ever launched a radio telescope way out in space, and looked home?

  25. Re:SETI will never find anything by Tony · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  26. We can't "see" planets very well yet by ianscot · · Score: 4, Informative
    The more than 100 known extrasolar planets are mostly whoppers, 'cause we're mostly still looking for cases in which a planet's big enough to cause the light coming from a star to wobble. (Exceptions involve cases like Vega -- it's got a dust field around it, and the computer models say the best explanation for how that dust looks is a Neptune-sized planet in about Neptune's orbit. Again, it's a planet discovered indirectly, by inferring things about its gravity.)

    None of the known extrasolar planets are supposed to be particularly good candidates for life, though that Vega case maybe indicates a solar system a little like ours, with rocky planets in the interior orbits... or that's the speculation.

    We've still got a ways to go in refining our way of just looking for the things. To narrow any search based on them would be premature.

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
  27. You people can't be serious! by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean come on, folks. Jesus uses a Mac. It's obvious. And any other view is heresy. Can I get an Amen?