Slashdot Mirror


SETI Institute Is Looking For a Few Good Algorithms

blackbearnh writes "For years, people have been using SETI@Home to help search for signs of extraterrestrial life in radio telescope data. But Jill Tarter, director of the Center for SETI Research at the SETI Institute, wants to take things to the next level. Whereas SETI@Home basically used people's computers as part of a giant distributed network to run a fixed set of filters written by SETI researchers, Tarter thinks someone out there may have even better search algorithms that could be applied. She's teamed with a startup called Cloudant to make large volumes of raw data from the new Allen telescope available, and free Amazon EC2 processing time to crunch the data. According to Tarter: 'SETI@Home came on the scene a decade ago, and it was brilliant and revolutionary. It put distributed computing on the map with such a sexy application. But in the end, it's been service computing. You could execute the SETI searches that were made available to you, but you couldn't make them any better or change them. We'd like to take the next step and invite all of the smart people in the world who don't work for Berkeley or for the SETI Institute to use the new Allen Telescope. To look for signals that nobody's been able to look for before because we haven't had our own telescope; because we haven't had the computing power.'"

29 of 98 comments (clear)

  1. Singularity by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Maybe it'll all be sorted out retrospectively following the singularity. There's a big crossover between AI and data mining/pattern recognition after all.

    Might make a good plot for a novel... ;)

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  2. If (signal eq '6EQUJ5') by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    print "WOW!"

    1. Re:If (signal eq '6EQUJ5') by gmagill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      c'mon, moderators... that was a good one

  3. According to Claude Shannon... by arc86 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise. I remembered hearing this in school so I searched and found this paper.

    As I understand SETI has always been searching for narrowband signals in the past. But our technology is moving toward spread spectrum signals for more efficient use of bandwidth, making our transmissions appear more like noise to anyone who doesn't know the encoding scheme. Aliens could be doing/have done the same. So good luck, scientists!

    1. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by kalidasa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We're far enough away from any likely candidate systems that we would only pick up very high power omni-directional signals - in other words, intentional beacons. Such a beacon is unlikely to be highly encoded (though there might be an associated signal that *is* highly encoded, and to which there is a pointer in the beacon signal). In other words, we don't have to worry too much about the Kolmogorov complexity of extra-terrestrial signals, because we won't be "overhearing" anything.

    2. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But would such "noise" get past a zipf analysis? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law). Even compressed and encrypted data doesn't lose order.

      --
      Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    3. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by DriedClexler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise. I remembered hearing this in school ...

      Well, to be more precise, it follows as an implication of:

      1) Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke's 3rd Law.)
      2) Maximally compressed data is indistinguishable from noise. (Theorem in information theory.)

      A sufficiently advanced civilization will ("magically") hit the theoretical compression maximum, and that will look like random noise. (Anyone's head hurting yet?)

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    4. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by ascari · · Score: 4, Funny

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise.

      So those noise making things that we heard at the World Cup actually were a sign of intelligence?????

    5. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by should_be_linear · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I guess we will also in 100 years or so realize that we emit nothing but noise, and short distance one for that matter (Wi-Fi, some future gen). So, if we want to be visible to potential neighbors, we must establish "pulsing station", which emits something intelligent and easily detectable, like prime numbers. But it is unlikely it will be old fashioned radio signal. It is probably hard to detect from such distances because it is destroyed by objects on its way (stars, galaxies, small objects, gas, whatever). Maybe neutrinos, such pulse could pass trough everything on its way, and maybe there is way to pickup that broadcast somehow on the other side (if there is, they will know how). So, maybe it is just to early for this sort of projects, there is homework on inter-galactic broadcast to do, and one that actually make sense, not analog TV.

      --
      839*929
    6. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by rm999 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you take truly compressed data, which resembles uniform noise, you will see a uniform distribution, not the one described in Zipf's law.

    7. Re:According to Claude Shannon... by arc86 · · Score: 2, Informative

      (This is not my field, but) I think a good way to state it is that if you are sending a data stream that has any order or predictability to it, you are not using your communication resources most efficiently. Surely the aliens wouldn't have truly optimal efficiency, but as they get smarter they will make it harder and harder for us to find them. (Ha. Maybe the efficiency is a happy side-effect.)

  4. If you thought the "Face on Mars" was fun by Wintermute__ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just wait and see what kinds of interesting "patterns" hordes of uninformed basement "researchers" can come up with given this huge dataset.

    I predict hilarity.

    1. Re:If you thought the "Face on Mars" was fun by brainboyz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are you kidding? Perfect prior art once and for all. "Your honor, we received the allegedly infringing work from a radio station broadcasting from 20,000 light years away which means it was produced and transmitted well over 19,900 years before it was copywritten on Earth. Based on current laws on Earth, that puts it firmly into the public domain by now, not withstanding any unknown copywrite laws in effect in this galaxy and/or cluster."

  5. A more intelligent method by Inoculate86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know about the specifics of analyzing radio waves to search for intelligible communication, but I can suggest one thing. The Kepler telescope set out to hunt for earth-like planets that may contain life. The SETI project as far as I can tell is scanning every part of the sky without discrimination. I suggest that Kepler and SETI team up so that when Kepler finds a planet that is capable of supporting intelligent life, SETI will point its telescopes to it and then run whatever algorithms you have to analyze the radio signals if there are any from that planet. This current method of scanning arbitrary locations in the sky sounds like it could be wasted effort when you don't know what it is you are pointing the radio telescopes at.

  6. Now they tell us. by rickb928 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So this is the beginning of the contest for better algorithms (ignoring how ee measure if they are better, since no one's found the data they are looking for in the first place), and then of course a new round of analyzing the data again.

    - Issue call for better algorithms.

    - Reprocess the data.

    - Find nothing.

    - Must be the algorithm.

    - Repeat.

    SETI will never die. It will just question its assumptions.

    Feh.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    1. Re:Now they tell us. by khallow · · Score: 2, Insightful

      SETI will never die. It will just question its assumptions.

      Why should it die? Keep in mind that we already have one group of sentient, radio broadcasting beings.

  7. I wonder if they survive... by v(*_*)vvvv · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't doubt that there is life elsewhere, there just has to be, right.

    I also don't doubt that space travel is possible, though this may well be.

    What I am beginning to doubt is if intelligent life really survives long enough. Seriously, the more intelligent we get, the more damage we do, and it seems that extinction is an inevitable consequence of any combination of freedom and destructive power, aka technology, over any long period of time.

    One of these days someone will trip on a cord or spill their coffee, and we are all going to die!!!

  8. How hard could it be... by thestudio_bob · · Score: 4, Funny

    if data contains alien_signal then
    alert("Found Alien!!! Prepare for destruction!!!)
    end if

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
    1. Re:How hard could it be... by selven · · Score: 4, Funny

      if data contains alien_signal then
      alert("Found Alien!!! Prepare for destruction!!!)
      end if

      >>> SyntaxError: EOL while scanning string literal

      See, it's much harder to implement than it looks.

    2. Re:How hard could it be... by reverendbeer · · Score: 2, Funny

      if data contains alien_signal then alert("Found Alien!!! Prepare for destruction!!!) end if

      I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do that.

  9. Using radio seems a silly method by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some civilizations will, for a short period of time, use detectable radio as a means of communication, but I suspect that there are very few of these at the same point in their technological development as we are. It would make more sense to look for objects that are almost certainly artifacts. Geometrically placed stars moving in the same direction at the same speed. The infrared signature of Dyson spheres. Anything that's too geometrically perfect to be natural. Anything that's accelerating//decelerating relative to it's surroundings. In our own solar system, what would an asteroid mine tailing look like, and does anything look like that?

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Using radio seems a silly method by grumbel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The chance to detect radio waves that leaked out from an alien civilization are rather slim, as technology moves forward and thus accidental radio broadcasts quickly become undetectable (lower power, better compression, etc.). So its really about intentionally send signals and for those radio waves are simply the best bet, as they are much easier to produce then any stellar size constructions, they are also easy to detect and they also allow you to actually submit real information. Arranging a few stars tells you that aliens are real, but nothing more and you probably spend a few million or billion years moving them around.

  10. SETI is flawed though... eg Arecibo message by gmezero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    SETI as designed is incapable of even detecting and decoding something akin to the Arecibo message, so I'm always puzzled at how they think they're actually going to know when they have hot data for real. I applaud the effort but I've always felt it was more of a feel-good activity for people to join in on. Hmm....

  11. I truly wish them success by BigBadBus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    But those of us who were around when the programme kicked off in 1999 got a bit peeved when it was found that we were processing the same workunits over and over again, and then there was the "problem" when it was announced that the clients weren't optimised for the scanning algorithms. A lot of people packed their bags and left the SETI@home project. Myself? I got a little annoyed when it was announced that new ideas for searching through the data were announced...and we'd have to start all over again. Lets hope that whatever is organised next time is a bit better, well, organised :-)

  12. Re:Questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ok, I don't know anything about this stuff but basically SETI is a big radio telescope array right?

    SETI

  13. You not going to find random radio signals!!! by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry to rant a bit but why the hell would a civilization sent out a radio signal from their planet? Look at us, all we do is "listen" but we don't build any transmitters capable of transmitting a signal across a thousand light years. Transmit first, listen second.

    But wait, what if they are capable of interstellar travel, they could send an invasion fleet... we are paranoid, why wouldn't another species be as well?

    So what to do? One you don't send a signal from your planet. Two you design your signal to be easily found; found by another species not even listening randomly for a signal. Answer: you build a spacecraft and send it someplace interesting. Some place an astronomer would find interesting and you either transmit from there or somehow you modulate the natural phenomena to carry a signal for you.

    You would have three types of signals. The first signal would be to get your attention and make you wait and listen for the second signal which would contain enough information (location, frequency, polarity, whatever) to direct you to a third signal that would actually contain an entire database worth of information.

    For an example of a type one signal I don't think it's too far outside possibilities that in the future we might discover a way to generate gravity waves and while they might not travel very far they might be strong enough to influence a star, white dwarf, neutron star, nebula. Imagine one day an astronomer looks at a nebula only to think.. hmmm, that part there sure looks like an arrow...

    1. Re:You not going to find random radio signals!!! by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Sorry to rant a bit but why the hell would a civilization sent out a radio signal from their planet? Look at us, all we do is "listen" but we don't build any transmitters capable of transmitting a signal across a thousand light years. Transmit first, listen second."

      I hope you're trolling.

      http://thepublicinterest.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/10/tv-in-space.png

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arecibo_message

      Welcome to 80 years ago. Our civilization has been spamming decipherable signals at the speed of light since it's been able to. And so far, that's the best we can do, unless you have some secret method of transmitting data across dozens of light-years faster than the universal speed limit of light speed with any technology that is practically obtainable in the next few decades.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
  14. Speed of light + SETI = Bad Logic by RFSSystems · · Score: 2

    I don't understand this. Okay... so we're listening for signals coming from outerspace. These signals travel at the speed of light. Say we hear something that originated from 300 light years away... that means that it was 300 years ago when they emitted that signal. So in essence, if WE send out a "Hello?"... we're likely to get back a "What??" 300 years later. I really don't understand the logic, but more power to ya.

    --
    A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer
  15. My head is hurting... by Tatarize · · Score: 2, Funny

    But only because you've blown my mind!

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.