Slashdot Mirror


Making It Hard For Extraterrestrials To Hear Us

quaith writes "US astronomer Frank Drake has told scientists at a special SETI meeting in London that earthlings are making it less likely that we will be heard in space. In the past, we used huge ground stations to broadcast radio and television signals which could be picked up relatively easily — according to astronomers' calculations anyway. Now we use satellites that transmit at 75 watts and point toward Earth instead of into space. In addition, we've switched to digital which makes the transmissions even fainter. Drake has concluded that very soon, in space no one will hear us at all. I guess we'd better keep listening."

34 of 374 comments (clear)

  1. Not news by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This issue was already known to Drake when he formulated his famous equation -- a key parameter is the time window during which a civilisation is broadcasting radio signals.

    1. Re:Not news by pengin9 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes xkcd says it best yet again.

    2. Re:Not news by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      The last factor in the equation is L, the length of time a civilization broadcasts radio waves into space.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:Not news by amRadioHed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reading the wikipedia page further, it seems like his understanding of L is that it represented how long a technological society would be capable of broadcasting into space. So it seems like he didn't actually consider that as technology advanced civilizations would significantly reduce the amount of stray emissions. As a result his guess for L was around 10000, a few orders of magnitude off it would seem.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:Not news by jibjibjib · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do people keep suggesting entanglement as a future communication technology? It doesn't transmit any information. (And if you say "But what if it does and we don't know yet?" then you're not talking about entanglement, you're talking about some random undiscovered physics and using the wrong word for it.)

    5. Re:Not news by rworne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A great book on the early discovery of sentient species by a superior species:

      The Killing Star

      Relativistic weapons impacting earth from outer space with Michael Jackson's "We are the world" warbling in over all the radio frequencies.

      Great book.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  2. Sufficiently Advanced by Da+Cheez · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if a sufficiently advanced civilization (like ours) eventually develops radio technology that doesn't get far beyond their own planet, could this severely limit how much we would detect from other planets in the way of radio signals?

    1. Re:Sufficiently Advanced by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Imagine a sphere of radio transmissions expanding at the speed of light from every civilized planet - sooner or later these are going to permeate space, so if you can't detect anything it starts to look a bit odd.

      Now imagine that civilizations typically switch to non-broadcast and/or digital signals (the latter, if efficiently compressed, will "sound" like random noise) within a century of inventing radio. Instead of spheres, space will be full of 100 light year thick "shells" of easily detectable signals. So its far more likely that we find ourselves in one of the gaps between shells.

      Of course, the Drake equation/Fermi paradox ideas are only plausibility arguments, make all sorts of assumptions about how civilizations develop based on extrapolation from one data point (us).

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  3. This has its perks by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It reduces the probability that earth could be quickly located.

    We gotta consider the possibility, that any extraterrestrials close enough to hear our signals in any reasonable amount of time, and with the sophistication to pinpoint us....

    Might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

    E.g. Consider earth itself... fast forward a few dozen generations...... massive overpopulation, lack of resources, land, severe overcrowding.

    Extreme desire for another habitable place to live.

    And then you detect an alien signal.. a foreign world. You step foot there, and you're greeted by basically an aboriginal species (compared to your civilization).

    Habitable world, massive resources, very primitive 21st-century level technology, nothing compared to your 23rd century tech.

    Oh.... so some colonists start travelling from earth to 'the new world' for a better life.

    Settlers VS the Natives all over again.

    It's happened before, it could happen again. Except us earth inhabitants could be the primitive natives / "Indians" / etc.

    Scary, huh? :)

    1. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Interesting

      [Aliens] might have the technology and desire to invade earth.

      Not if they have any economic sense in their heads. Unless the aliens have some sort of magic infinite energy source or teleportation device, the cost of transporting an invasion fleet to another solar system would be orders of magnitude higher than the value of anything they could possibly gain from Earth. And if they do have an infinite energy source or teleportation device, then they could use those inventions to provide for their needs directly, without leaving their home.

      So if aliens invade, it will be for solely their own entertainment, not for economic reasons.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    2. Re:This has its perks by cetialphav · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I imagine that by the time a civilization has the power to go to another solar system for colonization issues of overcrowding would be overcome by technology.

      I'm sure the Native Americans that occupied North America would have thought that about the Europeans, too.

      It is really hard to make any assumptions about why aliens might show up on our doorstep. There are logical explanations for why a peaceful, curious society would make the journey, but there are equally logical explanations for a hostile society. Certainly, the ability to develop long distance space travel means that a society has a high level of organization and cooperation. But we have seen that here on earth with both the United States and Nazi Germany. We also know that military conflict can be a great motivator to developing some kinds of technology, so visitors to earth might arrive in warships.

      The bottom line is we just don't know and no explanation seems any more plausible than any others.

    3. Re:This has its perks by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Funny

      We are in the XXI century just are beginning to see the Fusion Reactor [...] and I am certain I will die seeing one working efficiently.

      Now there's an ominous sounding prophecy... :^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  4. Fermi Paradox by localman · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And this is a possible answer to the Fermi paradox. Well, after you accept that interstellar travel is not economically feasible.

    Broadcast is not a great communication strategy. On-demand point-to-point communication takes over most things. Advanced civilizations go silent from the outside within a blink of them transmitting their first broadcast signals. There's no reason to think that we'll ever put serious effort into sending signals into the black given all the other things on our plate. And there's no reason to think that any other civilization would have such extra resources either.

    Cheers.

    1. Re:Fermi Paradox by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And this is a possible answer to the Fermi paradox. Well, after you accept that interstellar travel is not economically feasible.

      Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.

      Given that any alien race who chose to expand could colonise the entire galaxy in under ten million years without even trying hard (or a hundred million years without trying at all, just by tourists on a random walk), the answer to the Fermi Paradox is simple: there aren't any... if they existed, they'd be about as hard to spot as technological life in Manhattan.

    2. Re:Fermi Paradox by Bartab · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except no-one in their right mind would accept that. The cost of an interstellar colonisation flight would be small compared to the value of another solar system, and the cost of not expanding to other solar systems would be the death of our species.

      The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.

      The only return is darwinistic. Not all our eggs in one biological basket, and all that. However, unless we're damn sure the target system has an earth-like breathable, survivable biosphere, then we may as well stick to this system. We're not exploiting most of it at all. We -might- find an oxygen atmosphere, heated water laden, near-1g planet "nearby" (100 ly) but it's unlikely. What's nearly impossible is finding one with a biosphere that we can survive in without basically obliterating it and dropping down earth biologicals. Most things on such a planet would poison us.

      Unless such a magical planet is found, exploring outside our system before serious colonization (which -could- be economically valuable) of Mars, gas giant moons, etc is a waste. On all levels.

      If such a planet was found, I'd consider it proof of god.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo.
    3. Re:Fermi Paradox by bit01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The economic return of interstellar colonization is zero.

      The economic return of life is zero. Pretty pointless expending all that energy to be worm food.

      You need to remember what economic value is - anything that people value and are willing to pay money for.

      And a lot of people think that extending humanity's reach is pretty damn valuable. You might not agree but different people have different values.

      ---

      DRM'ed content breaks the copyright bargain, the first sale doctrine and fair use provisions. It should not be possible to copyright DRM'ed content.

    4. Re:Fermi Paradox by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the Western world, the economic return of having children is often considerably less than zero. Yet people keep doing it. I wonder why? Could it be that there are more things to consider than simple economics? I think that just might be possible.

      Why do you think finding an Earth-like world within 100 light years is "unlikely"? We have already discovered worlds with liquid water. Unfortunately, so far they have been far too large for us... but that's just because the big ones are easier to find. In just the last year we have found several planets closer to earth's size.

      Given our actual experience of the last couple of years, I don't think it's "unlikely" at all. I think it's quite likely indeed.

      Maybe you just haven't been keeping up with the recent news?

  5. This is good... by VendettaMF · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is good news. And overdue.

    We've been a stupidly noisy duck for far too long.

    --
    kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
  6. so what by Punto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the closest aliens are at least thousands of light years away, they haven't "missed" our radio signals, they still haven't heard them yet. And they'll have like 100 years of signals to figure us out.

    --

    --
    Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!

    1. Re:so what by Supurcell · · Score: 3, Funny

      And when they do see those signals, they will shit themselves when they see how good we are at killing aliens and promptly call us up to surrender.

  7. perhaps by wizardforce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering how the meeting between two civilizations, one more avanced than the other has generally gone badly for the majority of human history, it may not be such a bad idea to keep ourselves quiet until their intentions are shown to be peaceful/cooperative.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  8. More to the point by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do we WANT to be detected? Oh it would be wonderful if we could communicate with intelligent life somewhere other than earth (I am assuming there is intelligence here). But what if the species we contact are not peaceful? What if they're out looking for worlds to enslave? There certainly would be an advantage in staying quiet and being the first to "discover" a new civilization without giving up our own presence. That way we could study these new beings before deciding whether to risk contact or not.

    Likewise, the same logic can be applied to an alien species. Why would they trust us? Why would they carelessly beam their presence out into space, not knowing who was going to listen in? It is certain, given our past history (you know, that part about strong humans usually ending up wiping out weaker ones through conquest), that we ourselves aren't exactly trust-worthy. Maybe they have heard us, and we failed the test, and we will never meet our neighbors. That is one possibility the "Drake Equation" fails to account for. Maybe we will be permanently assigned to the universe's "time out" box, because of our bad behavior - and we'll never know.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  9. Find US? by Rammed+Earth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones? The Native Americans, the Mayans, the Incas, the Australian Aborigines, the tribes of South America, the natives of Pacific Islands, to name a few, all cry out to humanity to avoid at all costs encounters of the first, second, and third kinds. We have no reason to expect anything but annihilation from advanced alien races- either they are truculent and violent like we are, or they will destroy us as a service to the rest of the galaxy. We do not wants aliens to find us!

    1. Re:Find US? by syousef · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones? The Native Americans, the Mayans, the Incas, the Australian Aborigines, the tribes of South America, the natives of Pacific Islands, to name a few, all cry out to humanity to avoid at all costs encounters of the first, second, and third kinds. We have no reason to expect anything but annihilation from advanced alien races- either they are truculent and violent like we are, or they will destroy us as a service to the rest of the galaxy. We do not wants aliens to find us!

      Not a problem, unless they're very long lived or really have found a faster than light travel mechanism. Civilizations that were conquered on earth were all reachable well inside a human lifetime. What's more the civilizations all had things of value to the invaders - land, resources, natives to indoctrinate in their religion. Any civilization sufficiently advanced to invade would likely be able to obtain their resources more locally, and colonise more local uninhabited worlds. I would hope they're past superstition, but who knows.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Find US? by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Has anyone considered the historical evidence of what happens when superior civilizations encounter lesser ones?

      No, as it turns out, you're the first person ever to consider it. The first person in the entirety of human history. Even as I type, the Nobel Committee are holding an emergency session to create a new honour that's significant enough to even begin to recognise the enormity of your insight. Do not leave your home: a team of crack sculptors are en route to measure you up for your 400 foot tall solid gold statue.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  10. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by Toonol · · Score: 5, Funny

    I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

    DRM'ed, no doubt.

  11. Don't forget "Active SETI" by l2718 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There have been several attempts at sending radio messages into space specifically for communication purposes. Whether we keep that up or not is independent of our use of radio for intraplanentary communications.

  12. Re:Good. by cetialphav · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The flip side, of course, is that monitoring for radio signals is extremely cheap. It uses equipment that we already use for other purposes and a small number of researchers. The potential upside is huge, though. Discovering that an advanced civilization exists somewhere is such a big deal that there is no reason not to do something cheap and easy to find it.

    I agree that the odds are stacked against us and that it is unlikely that we find anything. Even if we are lucky enough to pick up a signal, establishing communications would be difficult. The odds are stacked against us, no question. But we are a curious species and we just can't pass up an opportunity to learn something, especially when it costs us so little.

  13. That's what's wrong with SETI by Animats · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've been critical of SETI efforts for this reason. Much SETI effort was focused on looking for "carriers", big constant-frequency RF sources. Broadcast AM, FM, and analog TV (which was AM video, FM audio) have strong carriers, but that was hugely inefficient. About 80% of an analog TV station's power output wasn't conveying any information other than "We're here". As receivers improved, new RF technologies used weaker carriers, then suppressed carriers, and finally, with spread spectrum, dropped the whole concept of carriers. Many modern RF signals appear to be noise unless you understand the encoding. (The same thing happened to modems decades ago; at 300 baud, you heard tones; at 9600 baud and up, it sounded like white noise.)

    I once pointed out to a speaker at Stanford promoting some SETI scheme that they couldn't detect any emission that the FCC would now license for a new application. He admitted that was true. For our civilization, there was less than a century of high-powered carriers. That's a narrow window to hit for SETI purposes.

    Arguably, though, any sufficiently advanced civilization will monitor all RF passing through their solar system and will be able to detect anything which has a pattern which can be synched up. Although carriers are going away, all signals between distant points need some form of synchronization information. The synch information may be a tiny fraction of the transmitted data, but there has to be something upon which the receiver can lock.

  14. it's modulated by r00t · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have large synchronized power grids. They'll get a signal that's 2x the line frequency. As the Earth turns, you get modulation of various sorts: frequency, phase, amplitude.

    Amplitude goes down for oceans, and up for land. You get more 100 Hz for the Old World, and more 120 Hz for the New World. As different country-sized areas with the same line frequency pass into view, you get phase change.

    It all has a nicely repetitive 24-hour period.

  15. Re:Why can't we hear ET? by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    I keep asking this question: Why can't we detect ET's transmissions?

    DRM'ed, no doubt.

    Dude, if only that were true! You'd find aliens just by searching the pirate bay!

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  16. Re:Encryption in space by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Haha actually that's a pretty good thought. Good encryption should yield a signal resembling one of maximum entropy... meaning that it would hardly be distinguishable from noise.

    On the other hand, if it were not the data itself but the character of the signal that were detectable, that's another story altogether. For example, the equivalent of TCP/IP packets would be easily detectable as intelligent signals, regardless of the eventual content of those packets.

  17. Any sufficiently advanced intelligence ... by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 3, Funny

    I believe there is a general principle here that goes beyond the technology at hand: any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from white noise.

  18. In another galaxy... sentients are wondering... by garompeta · · Score: 3, Funny
    In another galaxy, a frustrated physics professor is in charge in a project equivalent to SETI:

    "Stultz, I wonder if there is actually life out there. We've been centuries monitoring the neno-kurflichsk time-fabric disturbance detector that any technologically advanced civilization should be sending out if...if... they sentients do exist. I mean, it is third grade stuff, anybody knows that time-fabric can be disturbed instantly, we keep doing it simultaneously to all the atoms of the universe, and still nothing for CENTURIES. Can you believe it?"
    "Professor, I wonder... I have this crazy idea... maybe other other advanced civilizations use... radiowaves?"
    "Stultz, you are an idiot or what?"
    "I...I am just saying, maybe some less advanced civilizations..."
    "Pluuhlease, that is enough! Are you serious? You should go back to elementary school. Have you forgot that radiowaves travel at the speed of light??, it is more than obvious that it is not the most convenient way to communicate with other civilizations... unless you want to wait another lifetime to send your response, and to where should we point the antennas, huh?. Have you forgot that we are talking about ASTRONOMICAL DISTANCES?? It would take centuries! Or even worse, those electromagnetic waves would be absorbed by black holes, bounced, even hit by the breshanistok matter! We would get nothing or everything scrambled, indistinguishable from white noise! Your question is simply retarded. We are trying to contact sentients, not idiots!"

    And professor Breshanistok stood up upset and the graduate student Stultz watched the glowing monitoring holoscreen scratching his head.