Slashdot Mirror


Brainstorming Clever Ways To Detect Alien Civilizations

Phoghat writes "In what is starting to become a familiar theme, researchers have speculated on what types of observational data from distant planetary systems might indicate the presence of an alien civilization. Potential indicators of the presence of an alien civilization might include: atmospheric pollutants, like chlorofluorocarbons – which, unlike methane or molecular oxygen, are clearly manufactured rather than just biogenically produced; propulsion signatures – like how the Vulcans detected humanity in Star Trek: First Contact; evidence of stellar engineering – where a star's lifetime is artificially extended to maintain the habitable zone of its planetary system; or debris created from asteroid mining."

343 comments

  1. The Cleverest Way To Detect Alien Civilizations by countertrolling · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Turn off the detectors.. That'll stop 'em.. er. I mean.. ??

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    1. Re:The Cleverest Way To Detect Alien Civilizations by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      My cat comes running whenever I open a can of tuna. So, logically, to attract contact from alien civilizations, we have to:

      a) find an 'alien equivilent' to a can of tuna and
      b) build the corresponding (intergalactic) can opener, then
      c) profit!
          or
      c) be invaded !

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    2. Re:The Cleverest Way To Detect Alien Civilizations by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that could work. It will work on the same principle as a lot of hip clubs. By saying "We don't really need your business, *you* have to prove yourselves worthy of *us*" it will make the aliens even more determined to come here. It will send a message saying "We're too cool to look for you. But if you want to stop by, *maybe* we'll talk to you."

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    3. Re:The Cleverest Way To Detect Alien Civilizations by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      no one can hear you open a can of tuna in space.

    4. Re:The Cleverest Way To Detect Alien Civilizations by Phoghat · · Score: 1
      In other news:

      Space X and Virgin Galactic partner in plans to build a velvet rope barrier around the Earth.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. We can do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we really extend the life of our own sun? I can't even begin to calculate how that would work...

    1. Re:We can do that? by volcan0 · · Score: 1

      You just need to give it more fuel to burn and keep it's density.

    2. Re:We can do that? by rhook · · Score: 1

      Good luck with that.

    3. Re:We can do that? by icebike · · Score: 2

      Stellar engineering!?! Any civilization capable of that would be capable of finding another planet.
      And propulsion signatures, Really? What exactly would that look like?

      The whole thing reads like someone watches too much TV.

      Gases in the atmosphere are about the only thing that can be remotely sensed. But I'm sure someone could imagine a non-intelligent life form that could emit chlorofluorocarbons or just about anything else anyone would care to associate with civilization on earth.

      And Dyson Spheres. Yeah, that might work. Any civilization that could pull that off would already be HERE, probably farming US.

      You might have far more luck detecting a civilization at about the same stage as our own, by the debris field of dead satellites orbiting various planets and moons. But that requires getting closer than we have the technology to do.

      But the article begins with the big hand-wave:

      Currently – apart from a radio, or other wavelength, transmission carrying artificial and presumably intelligent content – it’s thought that indicators of the presence of an alien civilization might include...

      It seems to me that radio transmissions and artificial light sources would be likely used by most civilizations at one time in their development, simple because radio and light occur naturally from many sources, and "discovery" is easy. Either or both is likely be used, even if only briefly in any civilization of planet dwelling creatures.

      I don't think its fruitful to set about detecting Dyson Spheres when the radio would have reached us long before their sun dimmed.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:We can do that? by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Just put a big mirror next to it.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    5. Re:We can do that? by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Just direct Fox News broadcasts to it.
      They are so full of shit they have massive amounts to spare.

    6. Re:We can do that? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I don't think stellar engineering seems as difficult at interstellar travel. We have significant sources of hydrogen in-system, and building enough ships to evacuate the entire population is probably harder than building some simple machines to strip hydrogen off of jupiter and shoot it in the sun's direction.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    7. Re:We can do that? by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Stellar engineering!?! Any civilization capable of that would be capable of finding another planet.

      Never heard of nostalgia? Should humanity ever escape the earth and populate the stars, I'd imagine that sol will be one of the last ones to go dark, in the far future.

      And propulsion signatures, Really? What exactly would that look like?

      He's thinking about that spurious Project Rho page on space stealth I think.

    8. Re:We can do that? by Maritz · · Score: 2

      All the planets combined are a fraction of one percent the sun's mass. I don't think Jupiter will cut it.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    9. Re:We can do that? by rgbatduke · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. You have to take fuel away. The lifetime of stars is inversely related to their mass. A red dwarf will still be burning when our sun is only a distant memory from 70 or 80 billions years ago.

      Of course, this is all a remarkably silly proposition, as nobody is going to moderate the mass of the sun in any way whatsoever. Which is a shame, because global warming and cooling are in the end caused by the state of Mr. Sun, and that state is utterly beyond our control barring the discovery of new physics that I as a physicist cannot even imagine, E.E. "Doc" Smith space opera fantasy that violates all currently known physical laws and common sense. You could drop Mars into the sun and not significantly alter its steady state (aside from perhaps unleashing a burst of radiation sufficient to resterilize the Earth). Remember, you could drop the Earth itself into just one of its typical sunspots with room to spare. Even Jupiter is only 0.00095 times the mass of the Sun.

      The best way to find distant civilizations is to a) do what we are doing now -- build better eyes that can see and catalog extrasolar planets; b) continue to work on discovering the rest of physics, hoping that we discover that the Universe is not as fundamentally closed to us as it appears to be; c) one way or another, go look for them.

      c) at the moment is almost completely out of the question -- the energy costs of interstellar travel in anything like reasonable human times are truly ludicrous (and of course the dollar costs more so). New physics could change that; so could a rational society, but not while we spend close to half of what we make on a mix of mythology and war instead.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    10. Re:We can do that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, a "rational" society would look at the costs of interstellar travel and conclude that any attempt at a mission to another star was ludicrously overpriced and had absolutely zero practical value in any meaningful timeframe.

      That you can claim that our government spending would - if we just redirected it! - somehow enable us to do substantially more than we've already done towards an interstellar mission? That's truly irrational.

    11. Re:We can do that? by Mr.+Bad+Example · · Score: 2

      > Can we really extend the life of our own sun? I can't even begin to calculate how that would work...

      Well, for one, we should start using it only when it's dark outside.

    12. Re:We can do that? by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      No, a "rational" society would look at the costs of interstellar travel and conclude that any attempt at a mission to another star was ludicrously overpriced and had absolutely zero practical value in any meaningful timeframe.

      And now we know why suicide can be a rational choice.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    13. Re:We can do that? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      The problem with that is that the central region of the sun is not convective. If you dump hydrogen into the sun, it'll stay in the outer atmosphere. To get the sun to live longer, you'd need to get hydrogen into the core (which is a temporary solution), or you could pull helium out of the core (which could make the sun last a hubble time or more if you keep doing it.) Either is a feat of engineering that seems pretty difficult without technology indistinguishable from magic.

    14. Re:We can do that? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      To extend the life of the sun you need to pull the helium out of the core. Adding a Jupiter worth hydrogen won't do a thing.

    15. Re:We can do that? by Americium · · Score: 1
      Spectroscopy talk at TED

      An intelligent civilization will realize that a great way to let others know that intelligent life exists in that solar system is to put some Sulfur in the atmosphere of their star. Stars are well studied and the chemical ratios are well known, therefore, with an anomaly more than and order of magnitude above your uncertainty, you would know some intelligent being did this. Of course I do not recommend WE do this, as Aliens may not be friendly.

    16. Re:We can do that? by Americium · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't moving to another star be easier than moving something heavier than the earth?

    17. Re:We can do that? by icebike · · Score: 2

      Of course I do not recommend WE do this, as Aliens may not be friendly.

      But yet you suggest other civilizations might realize this is a great way to let others know, but be too dumb to realize the dangers?

      The amount of sulfur needed prevents sustainability of such a project over the time span needed for detection by any other intelligent life forms. How often do WE do spectral analysis on any given random star?

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:We can do that? by Americium · · Score: 1

      Once we are more advanced it won't matter, and once we are more advanced I'd think we'd be doing spectral analysis of all the stars in the sky 24 hours a day.

    19. Re:We can do that? by icebike · · Score: 1

      More advanced than who?

      If you don't know who is out there, how can you be sure you are more advanced?

      What about the civilization of in search of other naive civilizations of easily harvested edible individuals with high quantities of their favorite condiment, sulfur. Love the taste of meat-sticks pan seared with sulfur. So crunch on the outside and chewy on the inside.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    20. Re:We can do that? by Americium · · Score: 1

      ROFL, fly halfway across the galaxy just for a meal? I don't think Aliens exist anyway, so all this research and brain storming is all just in good fun.

    21. Re:We can do that? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Probably. But maybe we'll be incurable homebodies in 4 billion years.

    22. Re:We can do that? by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      And Dyson Spheres. Yeah, that might work. Any civilization that could pull that off would already be HERE, probably farming US.

      Not really as any reader of Niven's "Ringworld" novels could attest. The Dyson Sphere would have about a gazillion times the surface area of a planet and with that they really wouldn't need any place else to go.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  3. It's funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's funny that most of the methods mentioned in the summary wouldn't detect us.

    1. Re:It's funny... by Surt · · Score: 1

      Who would want to detect us?

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:It's funny... by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      Not me... (holding nose).

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    3. Re:It's funny... by Quirkz · · Score: 2

      Not really funny. We're a species that's basically newborn to technology and not even really spacefaring in any significant fashion. We're not looking for aliens like us, but for aliens a bit further along that path. Or rather, we're looking for any aliens, but most of the ones we'd expect to find would be technologically more advanced, because it'd be darn near impossible to be less advanced and still be detectable.

    4. Re:It's funny... by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they have just been watching to many shitty Syfy made-for-TV movies and expect any alien civilization to automatically be better than man by several tens of thousands of years.

      This whole thing, as well as the whole Type-X Civilization, nonsense has always been unrealistic an unreasonable. What is the usage of a scale that most civilizations won't even fit on? Total bullshit.

  4. Modulated neutrino beams by williamyf · · Score: 1

    Either in amplitude or PCM. Neutrinos interact with matter even less than Electromagnetic waves.

    They are a bitch to generate (take an awfull LOT of energy), but that is the problem of the alien civilization trying to comunicate, not ours, at least for the time being.

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!
    1. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neutrinos are a bitch to detect too. :)
      The beam /signal doesn't mean much if you can't detect it. Assuming physics is correctly understood and there's not some magic high efficiency neutrino detector, I can't imagine anyone (anything) trying use them as a communication medium. Periodic nuclear explosions on a neighboring moon would probably have a better chance (even if the signal is attenuated).

    2. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look for randomness.

      I would guess if you find a source (other than Earthly) of randomness, at any energy level, it's probably produced by something intelligent.

      It kinda pisses me off that every time I read or see something about SETI it's about looking for patterns. They should be looking for randomness.

    3. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by icebike · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Look for randomness.

      I would guess if you find a source (other than Earthly) of randomness, at any energy level, it's probably produced by something intelligent.

      It kinda pisses me off that every time I read or see something about SETI it's about looking for patterns. They should be looking for randomness.

      Seriously? How much of that do we emit, other than your post...

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    4. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Either in amplitude or PCM. Neutrinos interact with matter even less than Electromagnetic waves.

      Exactly - so why would you want to use them to communicate?

    5. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by coaxial · · Score: 1

      It kinda pisses me off that every time I read or see something about SETI it's about looking for patterns. They should be looking for randomness.

      You're not going to get very far by including every system that fails to reject the null hypothesis.

    6. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      It is vastly more difficult to detect randomness than it is patterns. Perhaps it would be a better indicator, but it would take us 1,000 times longer (or more) to find it.

    7. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our problem is to detect them, which is not easy. We would need a neutrino sensor with the same sort of sensitivity as a radio telescope, or at least a normal radio (assuming insane power levels and focus). We are orders of magnitude away from that, and probably always will be.

    8. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, if I remember my Quantum Theory correctly, you'll have no problem finding it. It's probably (I'm understating this) not intelligent though.

    9. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      Neutrinos?

      I always learned that tachyons were the solution for all scifi problems. Might have to modulate the frequency though.

    10. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hey, look, there's some randomness in those cloud patterns, they must be intelligent. WTF are you talking about?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    11. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    12. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      Random radio noise and random optical noise are present in a great abundance. All thermal processes are random. Non-random processes are the sign of intelligence.

    13. Re:Modulated neutrino beams by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      Either in amplitude or PCM. Neutrinos interact with matter even less than Electromagnetic waves.

      Exactly - so why would you want to use them to communicate?

      High level of thought is faster than the speed of light. Einstein wrote about this as a high level communication, but as we are stuck in a world of "closed minds". Unless something can be proven physically which thought is not..... it is dismissed as bullshit. Welcome to the world of closed minds.....Beam me up scotty!

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  5. clearly manufactured? by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Potential indicators of the presence of an alien civilization might include: atmospheric pollutants, like chlorofluorocarbons â" which, unlike methane or molecular oxygen, are clearly manufactured rather than just biogenically produced

    Clearly? Maybe here on earth. Who knows what natural processes exist elsewhere.

    1. Re:clearly manufactured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the important part... "are clearly manufactured rather than just biogenically produced".

      As if finding evidence of life is not enough... it has to be a civilization. Jeez.

      By the time we could actually travel to any life we find it's probably going to be intelligent anway.

    2. Re:clearly manufactured? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Who says life has to be based on our chemistry?

      They may poop diamonds for all we know. Remember the Horta.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a stone mason!

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:clearly manufactured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are natural, aren't they? Why isn't manufacturing natural if people do it?

    4. Re:clearly manufactured? by NotSanguine · · Score: 1
      >

      Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor, not a brick layer!

      FTFY

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    5. Re:clearly manufactured? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      well, for some reason if it needs a human hand to do it here, then it's unnatural.

      you know, like coral reefs are unnatural and a sign of a organized community.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    6. Re:clearly manufactured? by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Clearly? Maybe here on earth. Who knows what natural processes exist elsewhere.

      If we make unmanned probes and send them out, and one of our probes turns up CFCs in an atmosphere like our own, and we go there and find no life, then you'll have the right to say "I told you so."

    7. Re:clearly manufactured? by jd · · Score: 3, Informative

      The actual suggestion, as originally proposed by James Lovelock and expanded-upon by others, is that you look for the following:

      a) Dynamic equilibriums involving chemicals that are unstable in each other's presence and/or in the presence of the radiation from their sun

      Unless the chemicals are replenished, such a system MUST reduce to a stable equilibrium, although this is insufficient to say HOW they are replenished.

      b) Evidence that one or more of the chemicals cannot arise naturally (ie: there ISN'T a geological process, even an unknown one, that could ever create the compound)

      Not all chemicals have a natural proginator. Doesn't matter how alien the world is, doesn't matter how strange or exotic, not everything can happen naturally. The reliance on a mysterous get-out-of-jail-free "unknown" simply doesn't cut it for some stuff. Chemistry is remarkably simple and the rules of what chemical reactions can and cannot happen are very well known. Those rules are as true in any solar system in Andromeda or on any planet that has no sun at all as they are here.

      c) Evidence that the compounds resulting from the natural reaction of the compounds observed in the atmosphere are BELOW the levels that can possibly occur as a result of the reactions that must be taking place

      We can observe every damn element in an atmosphere along with exactly what compounds those elements combine to form, their ratios and their temperatures. There are no hidden variables within the atmosphere itself. If the chemicals that should be there aren't, then the chemicals are being removed by a variable that is NOT a part of the atmosphere.

      d) As environmental conditons change (such as distance from the sun, etc), the ratio of compounds in the atmosphere changes such as to oppose that environmental change

      ie: There's one or more negative feedback loops - not just on the addition of compounds to the atmosphere but also on the removal. Geological processes don't work this way. This isn't through our limited knowledge. Volcanos don't select what gasses they spew according to the time of year. If the gravitational pull is enough, they may vary in frequency. What they cannot do is vary in composition.

      In addition, the vast majority of chemical reactions have POSITIVE feedback loops, not negative ones. The only way to produce negative feedback loops in sufficient quantity to overwhelm the positive feedback loops is to have a living component.

      Meet these four conditions and life is guaranteed present. It may be present at some level when not all four are met (the statement isn't reversible), but it can never be absent when all are true.

      There is NO extension to these rules which will allow you to determine the presence of intelligent life.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    8. Re:clearly manufactured? by lxs · · Score: 1

      You have to have civilization. What's the point of traveling to other planets if they don't have decent tapas restaurants?

    9. Re:clearly manufactured? by ComputerGeek01 · · Score: 1

      You're right about something like CFC's, this may have been a poor example or the author trying to be too specific. But what if we found trans-uranic elements in the atmosphere of a system that has a stable star? Wouldn't that mean it's at least worth taking a second look at that planet?

      The idea here is to narrow down our search field by identifying traits of a planet that we can look for with our current technology. Then to focus our effort from every planet in existence to maybe ten thoursand or so.

    10. Re:clearly manufactured? by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Now I imagine a world where alien yeast produces CFCs to carbonate alien beer.

    11. Re:clearly manufactured? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      That was roughly my thought. Especially the part about stellar engineering. I don't really know much about that field, but I doubt that we're anywhere near close to extending the life of the sun.

    12. Re:clearly manufactured? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      CFCs are of little use to a life form. The are too stable to take part in most chemical reactions. I suppose you might see them as a waste product in a very weird metabolism. But in that case you're going to get an atmosphere filled with CFCs because they are so stable. It's hard to imagine a photosynthesis reaction that would have enough energy to pull an atom off of Freon without the Freon molecule immediately bonding with the closest atom.

      I suppose it's possible, but I think that planet would be one in a trillion.

    13. Re:clearly manufactured? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Dmmit Jim, I'm a Mason, not a Shriner!

    14. Re:clearly manufactured? by amirulbahr · · Score: 1
      The following statement seems completely counter intuitive to me. Are you able to back up the claim with a citation or example?

      Not all chemicals have a natural proginator. Doesn't matter how alien the world is, doesn't matter how strange or exotic, not everything can happen naturally. The reliance on a mysterous get-out-of-jail-free "unknown" simply doesn't cut it for some stuff. Chemistry is remarkably simple and the rules of what chemical reactions can and cannot happen are very well known. Those rules are as true in any solar system in Andromeda or on any planet that has no sun at all as they are here.

  6. The Atomic Bomb by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    The detection of an atomic bomb throws off a unique signature not found in nature. It's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence. The kind of signature not normally found in nature. Detect those, and you've got your alien race.

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's how the Cylons located the remaining Caprican settlers!

    2. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shyeah, just some more jerks to avoid.

    3. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The detection of an atomic bomb throws off a unique signature not found in nature. It's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence

      I seem to remember a sci-fi novel where aliens refused to make contact with earth because "They created nuclear explosions on their OWN planet!!! Harldy intelligent life!"

      Lets say we do detect a nuclear explosion on another planet...now what? We have evidence of a species that is uses something we would only really consider using in a terrible war.

    4. Re:The Atomic Bomb by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What if it's detected in the asteroid belt? Not a bad way to split open a rock to get at the gooey middle.

    5. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Neo+Quietus · · Score: 1

      Well, if we detected the explosions on the surface of the planet, we might have evidence that intelligent life used to exist there. But in theory they could be using an Orion type nuclear pulse rocket and we could detect those.

    6. Re:The Atomic Bomb by kaiser423 · · Score: 1

      Uh, how often do you think that alein civilizations are lighting those puppies off? I would expect somewhat rarely, which would make it a very bad candidate for detecting life.

    7. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Nimatek · · Score: 1

      There have been thousands of nuclear explosions over the course of a few decades on our planet, FYI.

    8. Re:The Atomic Bomb by mbone · · Score: 1

      The Tsar bomb (57 megatons) was about 2 x 10^17 joules. Suppose all of that energy was released as visible light at a wavelength of 0.5 microns; that's about 6 x 10^35 photons, which sounds like (and is) a lot. However, at one light year (assuming a uniform blast of radiation), that works out to 500 photons per square meter.

      Now, that could be detected, if you were looking for it. At 4.4 light years (Alpha Centauri), that's 26 photons per square meter, which would be detectable with a big telescope (maybe). Go out as far as 100 light years (0.05 photons / square meter) and there is no way that could be separated from the flood of photons coming from the Sun. Also, we set off bombs on a very irregular basis (thankfully). These occasional dim flashes would have been very hard to notice and pull out of the background clutter, even with big telescopes, and even as close as Alpha Centauri. It would likewise be very hard for us to detect them, if aliens were setting them off at Alpha Centauri, even as we speak.

      Now, in reality, a bomb in space puts out most of its signal at higher energies (thus smaller numbers of photons / square meter), while blasts in the atmosphere put a lot of energy into the shock wave, heating of the air and ground, etc. These are very optimistic calculations.

      So, if the ETs are setting off anything like human type bombs at human type frequencies, I don't think that we are going to find them from it, even if they are doing it right next door (astronomically speaking).

    9. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A large enough detonation of nukes to see from interstellar distances would be an indicator of the ABSENCE of life.

    10. Re:The Atomic Bomb by RsG · · Score: 1

      Presupposing the energy from an atomic detonation is even detectable across interstellar distances, we'd still need to be extraordinarily lucky in terms of timing.

      On Earth, the only above-ground nuclear detonations, ever, occurred in the twentieth century, specifically 1945-1980 or thereabouts. I'm not including underground tests, as they aren't as easy to spot from a distance (they're easy to detect here on earth via seismograph, but that doesn't apply to the discussion) . If something out there were looking at us with a telescope, they'd need to be tuning in sometime in that three and a half decade time period, or else they'd miss the fireworks. If they were looking at light that left before 1945, they'd see nothing; if they tuned in their telescopes now and received light that left in 1985 they'd see nothing.

      For nuclear detonation to work as a sign of intelligence, one of three things must be the case. The intelligent life in question is engaged in above-ground nuclear testing. Which we abandoned with good reason, and I can't imagine they'd be any different, so the window of opportunity is brief. Or the intelligent life is using nuclear explosions peacefully, as in an Orion engine or asteroid mining. In which case they're probably doing plenty of other things we could just as easily spot. Or the intelligent life is not so intelligently blowing themselves up in nuclear warfare.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    11. Re:The Atomic Bomb by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      But what if those entities are really intelligent, and are not making such bombs to begin with?

    12. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 0, Insightful
      Sigh, obligatory Calvin and Hobbes:

      Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

      Mod me up to +5 for that, because it was totally insightful.

    13. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we were to want to be noticed (not sure that's a good idea) we could launch a nuke of some kind to a more open area of space and set it off. That might be easier to notice (for those looking for it) since it would be more unusual. And if we might do that, perhaps others would as well. Maybe we need to look for things that don't make sense to occur naturally.

      Of course this might all be pointless, even if another species was doing just this themselves, they might not do it for another million years, or have done it a million years ago (which would be okay in some ways if they were a million light years away, but less interesting at 100 light years) and the odds of anything of those occurring is quite likely.

      But thought excersises like this are a good thing, even if not very practical.

    14. Re:The Atomic Bomb by RsG · · Score: 1

      If we wanted to announce ourselves, we don't need a nuke. A radio beam would suffice. If we wanted more of a "flare", that could be seen by everyone, a powerful, repeating omnidirectional pulse in a specific wavelength would attract more attention than a nuke, if only because it leaves less room for doubt.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    15. Re:The Atomic Bomb by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Given that there are maybe a thousand or two stars within the 70 light years that those waves could possibly have reached, life would truly have to be EVERYWHERE to have reached a civilization with the technology to notice we could possibly exist.

      You might as well just bend over for your anal probe.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    16. Re:The Atomic Bomb by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's how the Cylons located the remaining Caprican settlers!

      hehe.. nailed....

    17. Re:The Atomic Bomb by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's blow up a huge fucking bomb that releases toxic radiation in our only biosphere-- that'll show them we're intelligent. Let's face it, any peaceful alien race probably has something like the prime directive in star trek and will go to extreme measures to hide their presence until we're developed enough to make contact. They've probably observed us enough to notice we're pretty much a warrior race or that we've got a majority that homophobic or discriminating against our own race on appearance and figured most of us would become xenophobic and they should stay the eff away. All we're doing by sending signals into space is putting a "WE ARE HERE!" sign to hostile alien races-- who frankly are the only who would seem to bother with us. Even then they may not bother us after observing what we do to our own kind. I mean hell, we blew up our moon to see if there was water in it. If we want to get someone's attention, we can either star blowing up random stars just for fun or develop some incredible technology.

    18. Re:The Atomic Bomb by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Right! BOOM! Ok, there used to be a civilization where this asteroid belt is. Wonder what they were like/

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    19. Re:The Atomic Bomb by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      And what about the hostile alien race? Do they have a prime directive too? Maybe they're all about the whole "devide and conquer" technique so as to further their efforts in strip-mining the planet of valuable resources. Just a thought.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    20. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Indeed, a slight overestimation our nuclear bling there.

    21. Re:The Atomic Bomb by lennier · · Score: 1

      But what if those entities are really intelligent, and are not making such bombs to begin with?

      Fricken' dolphins, we're not talking to them again. It's all "fish, fish, fish" and squaring the sides of a triangle and how to redistribute goods and services equitably among equal yet separate citizens in a just economy

      Dolphins. They're just not worth it.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re:The Atomic Bomb by FreakyGreenLeaky · · Score: 1

      That was an excellent visual description of the expanding sphere of radiation. I'll remember that one to explain to folks here why something as massive as a star or galaxy is only seen as a point of light when viewed without magnification (which is really collecting as many of those photons as possible).

    23. Re:The Atomic Bomb by jd · · Score: 2

      There are at least two sites on Earth known where natural deposits of uranium were pure enough to have undergone a thermonuclear process of the kind found in a nuclear reactor. Although improbable, it is certainly possible for an entirely natural nuclear bomb to arise. It is, agreed, exceedingly unlikely but all the processes required do exist in nature and therefore must combine somewhere, at some point in time, in just the right way.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    24. Re:The Atomic Bomb by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

      Actually the unique power signature of an atomic bomb is a universal sign of stupidity, not intelligence.

    25. Re:The Atomic Bomb by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Reprocessing uranium and creating plutonium is a monumental task. While I'm sure your right about the uranium, I'm not so sure about plutonium. But that aside, my limited understanding of how the bomb works requires explosives (gun type) and explosive lenses for the implosion. Get it wrong, and you've got a dirty bomb on your hand. So how is an explosion possible in nature with these two materials in such pure concentration possible? Thermal meltdown, sure. But an explosion?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    26. Re:The Atomic Bomb by UtsuMaster · · Score: 1

      Favorable natural geometry, meteorite impact?

      Slightly less favorable geometry, slightly more energetic impact?

      Endless possibilities do make the unlikely possible. And I wouldn't be sure plutonium is essential to a nuclear reaction.

      --
      ...or not.
    27. Re:The Atomic Bomb by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      it's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence.

      hehe... wantonly the risking destruction of its entire own habitat is a "universal sign of intelligence" of a civilization? NOT!

    28. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The detection of an atomic bomb throws off a unique signature not found in nature."

      Yes, but the droids who developed atomic bombs 70 million (light-)years ago are NOT the droids we're looking for.

    29. Re:The Atomic Bomb by OolimPhon · · Score: 1

      You may be right, but...

      How many of those were in the atmosphere?

      How many of those were recent?

      Atmospheric testing of atomic weapons lasted perhaps 25 years. Good luck spotting that narrow window from another star system.

    30. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Nimatek · · Score: 1

      I was just pointing out that during that time we would've looked like we're happily tossing nukes around our own planet, to anyone using that detection method.

    31. Re:The Atomic Bomb by vlm · · Score: 1

      Presupposing the energy from an atomic detonation is even detectable across interstellar distances, we'd still need to be extraordinarily lucky in terms of timing.

      You forgot planetary rotation. Unless the Orion Star Empire or whatever surrounds our solar system, at least half the "transmitted signal" would have to pass thru the earths surface.

      What would probably work as a signalling system would be setting one off precisely every 1/6 of an earth rotation... Yer average alien MIGHT detect the pattern.

      I have no idea if anyone, SETI or AAVSO or whatever is looking for medium term variations in light level like that.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    32. Re:The Atomic Bomb by vlm · · Score: 1

      Yes, let's blow up a huge fucking bomb that releases toxic radiation in our only biosphere

      We have a perfectly good moon right near by that needs considerable civil engineering to make habitable, and already is bathed in radiation anyway. If not our neighbors, we can pop near earth asteroids into dust.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    33. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Teun · · Score: 1

      You mean like a regular TV or radio transmitter that is on 24/7 and has newscasts every 60 mins.

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    34. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Americano · · Score: 1

      Maybe the aliens want their Fox News too. It's very popular here on earth, why not Alpha Centauri too?

    35. Re:The Atomic Bomb by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence.

      More like a universal sign of stupidity. I imagine any aliens looking at Earth would keep well away while we were pissing around exploding nuclear bombs.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    36. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod me up to +5 for that, because it was totally insightful.

      No.

      Have a nice day.

    37. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The detection of an atomic bomb throws off a unique signature not found in nature. It's like a power beacon of energy that's a universal sign of intelligence. The kind of signature not normally found in nature. Detect those, and you've got your alien race.

      Yeah if they are self centered, ignorant, geeks. Get a clue, the aliens may be smarter then you.

    38. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, Oklo wasn't fusion. thermonuclear != spontaneous criticality.

    39. Re:The Atomic Bomb by jd · · Score: 1

      Anyone who confuses fission with fusion has good reason to be an anonymous coward. Anyone who cannot comprehend what "thermonuclear" (lit. "nuclear heat") is, again, has good reason to hide. Anyone who cannot understand that two sub-critical masses joined with sufficient force can exceed the critical mass is just plain dumb.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    40. Re:The Atomic Bomb by jd · · Score: 2

      It isn't. The Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb. It didn't use plutonium at all.

      In terms of geometry, what you'd need is a naturally-occuring uranium deposit that contained sufficiently few impurities that it had achieved a self-sustaining natural reaction, both on the ground and on the meteorite. We know the first one is possible because we've found such places. Since it can occur on the ground, it is reasonable to assume it can happen in space under suitable conditions. You also want the deposits on the planet to have undergone the geological process of "folding" (where layers of rock are bent out of shape - very common thing to have happen). The more extreme the fold (and it can get very extreme indeed) the better.

      A slightly less favourable geometry would need a steeper angle of incidence, at least the way I was picturing it, but under suitable conditions a more energetic impact would likely work as well. So we've doubled the endless possibilities.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    41. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The detonation of an atomic bomb is a sign of intelligence ?

    42. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In standard usage, thermonuclear means fusion). So, you're saying that Fukushima is thermonuclear? Sorry, you're wrong. It's fission. I'm not hiding out of ignorance. I just don't want anyone to know what an asshole I really am.

      - Ph.D. in physics

    43. Re:The Atomic Bomb by jd · · Score: 1

      No, in standard usage thermonuclear meas a process in which a sizable amount of energy (usually heat) is released as a byproduct of the reaction and includes ALL hot fission reactions. This is why thermonuclear weapons are uranium or plutonium. Any fission nuclear reactor that runs a "hot" core (not all do, certain designs are intended to run at low temperatures) is thermonuclear. A "cold fusion" reactor, however, would not be thermonuclear (despite your claim that fusion and thermonuclear mean the same thing).

      Fukushima is currently not thermonuclear, since it is progressing towards a cold state and has long-since passed the point of running hot. It's debatable, since Fukushima was a design that ran relatively cold compared to other reactor designs, as to whether it would be considered a truly hot reactor. When it went into meltdown, the process certainly ran very hot indeed.

      If you have a PhD, please see the section on why Americans now think PhDs are worthless. You have demonstrated their point so much better than I.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    44. Re:The Atomic Bomb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fusion reactions proceed by banging ions into each other at high energy. They have to hit each other hard enough (typically, at least 10s of keV CM energy) to penetrate deeply enough into the Coulomb repulsion between the two positively charged ions. In stars and fusion bombs, the ions are in some equilibrium thermal distribution, so we call it thermonuclear. Shooting an ion beam at a target to get fusion wouldn't be considered thermonuclear, because the distribution is far-off equilibrium. It has been shown quite generally that you need a thermal distribution to get net power out of a fusion device. There's also the odd case of muon-catalyzed fusion, whereby deuterons are brought close enough together to get appreciable tunneling through the Coulomb barrier.

      On the other hand, fission reactions proceed by large unstable nuclei being broken apart with neutrons. In this case, you want the incident neutron energy to be low (maybe down to under a few 10s of eV) because the cross section drops rapidly with neutron energy. The trick is moderating the released neutrons down to low energy so that the reaction proceeds.

      In a nutshell, fusion devices (fusion bomb, star, ITER) are driven by the thermal energy of the ions and are called thermonuclear. Fission
      devices (fission bomb, Fukushima, Oklo reactor) are driven by the moderated low-energy neutrons and are not called thermonuclear. Do you
      still insist on calling fission devices thermonuclear?

    45. Re:The Atomic Bomb by sveinungkv · · Score: 1

      Let's face it, any peaceful alien race probably has something like the prime directive in star trek and will go to extreme measures to hide their presence until we're developed enough to make contact. They've probably observed us enough to notice we're pretty much a warrior race or that we've got a majority that homophobic or discriminating against our own race on appearance and figured most of us would become xenophobic and they should stay the eff away.

      To assume that aliens, if they exist, think like man, I can forgive, since it's hard to imagine another way of thinking even if an alien way to think would be more realistic. However, your assumption that they think like a small group of humans that only have existed for a small part of human history (that I assume you are a part of) makes me think you should expand you horizons a bit. The potential aliens might just as well reason like this: "They're not usable as gladiators for hire to entertain us, even if we pay each winning gladiator with the knowledge of a technology that is decades ahead of their level, as they have to many inhibitions to fight in an entertaining way. They're not advanced enough to make porn extremely superior to the real thing (something that wiped out all of our specie except our ancestors, blessed be their wisdom, that saw the evil of unproductive sex). Even without this temptation they not only allow unproductive sex but in many places encourage it, even between individuals of the same sex. Since many of them are offended by the idea of superior races of their own specie how will they react to our superiority? Better stay away." (Note that this alien still is peace full. It won't attack or force amyone to do anything. The gladiators are volunteers that go for their own reasons, like the hope to become rich from alien technology when they return victorious)

      --
      Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
    46. Re:The Atomic Bomb by jd · · Score: 1

      HOT fusion requires high energy collisions. Cold fusion does not. HOT fusion is thermonuclear, COLD fusion is not. Cold fusion is NOT, therefore, thermonuclear. Until you've updated yourself on the past, oh, 30-40 years of nuclear physics, further debate is a waste of my time. Actually, whilst you're learning about nuclear science, you may want to try getting medication for your offensive and abusive tone.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  7. A dead giveaway by mrsam · · Score: 1

    would be, IMHO, a large black rectangular monolith in orbit against one of the outer planets...

    1. Re:A dead giveaway by memyselfandeye · · Score: 2

      I was going to go with the large orbital rectal probe manufactory...

    2. Re:A dead giveaway by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      would be, IMHO, a large black rectangular monolith in orbit against one of the outer planets...

      Or when the little green men get off their silvery saucer-shaped craft and "have us for dinner".

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  8. How can we communicate with them? by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    What I've also wondered is how big of an antenna would we need to detect a communication from a near star, say 50ly. And how much power would it take to send a message that far?

    If we can't even see planets, how can SETI expect to receive a transmission from one?

    I've asked some astronomy majors about this and received only blank stares. Do they teach this kind of thing in astronomy? What are the calculations?

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
    1. Re:How can we communicate with them? by memyselfandeye · · Score: 1

      Interferometry is the short answer. The long answer is, no, it wouldn't be insurmountable to pick up Casey Kasem 50ly away with a good array.

    2. Re:How can we communicate with them? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Do they teach this kind of thing in astronomy?

      Perhaps, but it's in every SETI FAQ, so you don't need to go to College to figure it out.

      Short version: radio SETI is looking for intentional radiators.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:How can we communicate with them? by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Interferometry is the short answer. The long answer is, no, it wouldn't be insurmountable to pick up Casey Kasem 50ly away with a good array.

      I don't quite understand the long answer; can you give me the short answer, please?

    4. Re:How can we communicate with them? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 1

      The light from planets is omnidirectional, time-continuous and over a frequency-continuum. You can save energy by only submitting in one direction and for a short duration and at a specific frequency. That's why SETI is looking for pulses from exoplanets or crowded regions, and recorded at suitable (presumably universal) frequency windows like the waterhole.

      Search Google or Youtube for Seth Shostak on some SETI talks -- he also mentions how you can transfer a signal in a science fair project.

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    5. Re:How can we communicate with them? by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      What I've also wondered is how big of an antenna would we need to detect a communication from a near star, say 50ly. And how much power would it take to send a message that far? If we can't even see planets, how can SETI expect to receive a transmission from one? I've asked some astronomy majors about this and received only blank stares. Do they teach this kind of thing in astronomy? What are the calculations?

      It's a fair question. Fortunately, an intentional transmitter can be much brighter than the star or planet -- in a narrow bandwidth and pointing straight at you. (And stars aren't very bright at microwave frequencies.) There's no problem communicating to nearby space if you know each other's frequency and direction. You can concentrate megawatts of power into

      Interferometry (increasing the spatial resolution of the receiving antenna) actually doesn't help you much, except to discriminate against the diffuse galactic background. You need all the collecting area you can afford, but that's not the same thing.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
    6. Re:How can we communicate with them? by bromoseltzer · · Score: 1

      Meant to say you can concentrate megawatts into less than 1 Hz of bandwidth and then multiply the power by using a very high gain antenna. The big problem in SETI is not knowing where to look or where to tune your receiver.

      --
      Fiat Lux.
    7. Re:How can we communicate with them? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      To calculate, simply use the inverse square law, then make use of this information kindly provided by Wikipedia concerning information theory and noisy channels.

      Together, this along with the target distance to the alien planet will give you the optimum broadcast power for an intelligable message to be sent. Bear in mind that the SNR needs to be sufficiently high to still discern the signal from cosmic background radiation. Choice of broadcast frequency would be helpful here, but sadly I cant link you to any helpful data on that one.

      For the inverse, (Building a reception antenna), you would need to compute the absolute minimum broadcast power that the alien civilization could still realistically send a message that distance with (Using the first part above), then calculate the gain needed to derive a useful signal from the weak source.

      Given the distances, you are probably looking at something the size of aracibo or bigger.

    8. Re:How can we communicate with them? by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Meant to say you can concentrate megawatts into less than 1 Hz of bandwidth and then multiply the power by using a very high gain antenna. The big problem in SETI is not knowing where to look or where to tune your receiver.

      You probably know this already, but for the benefit of anyone following along: antenna gain does not produce extra power. The purpose of gain is (when transmitting) to send all input power in a desired direction, and (when receiving) reject incoming signals from undesired directions.

      When receiving, you will also need an antenna with a very large effective area so as to capture as many photons as possible. That's why Aricebo is so large; and being a dish antenna, it is also very high gain.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    9. Re:How can we communicate with them? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1
      But what if they don't think in those terms? That is, what if they don't need much energy on a daily basis? Then energetics might not be their first thought when it comes to communications.

      Their females might photosynthesize. Maybe they build crystal palaces out of hardened, superinsulating saliva. Maybe they fart all the methane they could possibly need. Perhaps they try to shake all their asses in sync to sway their planet and send out gravity waves.

      "The thing about aliens is... they're alien." -- Gregory Benford

    10. Re:How can we communicate with them? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      Homeopathy is the answer! We need to dilute our population down to a level where it is undetectable, then we'll be easy to find!

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    11. Re:How can we communicate with them? by vlm · · Score: 1

      What I've also wondered is how big of an antenna would we need to detect a communication from a near star, say 50ly. And how much power would it take to send a message that far?
      I've asked some astronomy majors about this and received only blank stares. Do they teach this kind of thing in astronomy? What are the calculations?

      Clearly you didn't ask any "older" radio astronomers. The most interesting chapter of J.D. Kraus's (ancient?) classic "radio astronomy" book, was devoted to the theoretical radio astronomy of the Earth by aliens... complete with discussion of the effect of our ionosphere and the interstellar medium on various signals, etc.

      Even newbie radio astronomer buddies should be able to answer the question, they were just blowing you off. Probably because your problem is not well characterized. Do you mean by "amateurs working at home" class of equipment like the ham radio and SETI guys, or about 100 dB further for the futuristic civilization with a "whole crater" dish on the far side of the moon, or a constellation of orbiting interferometers in Pluto's orbit? Or an interferometer with one leg here, and one at Alpha Centauri?

      Its like asking an electrical engineer how much power a light requires, or an IT guy how many patches "windows" requires. It depends.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:How can we communicate with them? by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 1

      And who's patient enough to wait 100 years to hear the answer to:

      "Can you hear me now?"

      --


      "Lame" - Galaxar
    13. Re:How can we communicate with them? by belthize · · Score: 1

      Most AT&T customers.

    14. Re:How can we communicate with them? by mbone · · Score: 1

      Yeah, any radio astronomer should be able to do this in their sleep.

      The classical response is that Arecibo (our biggest telescope, supporting the Earth's most powerful radar) could detect a clone of itself across most of the galaxy. Even this pessimistic (or conservative) estimate is 10,000 light years, a considerable distance.

      However, that is detection (with a 1 or more hour integration time). If you want to communicate at a reasonable rate (say, 100 bits per second), you need to be maybe 100 times closer, so the distance you could actually communicate is more like a few hundred light years at best. Optical communications have some advantages, and could certainly match and maybe exceed these distances with existing technology. Note that any probe we are likely to send for a very long time to come will be within these sorts of communication ranges.

    15. Re:How can we communicate with them? by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      We build giant shutters on the side of the sun that faces their system and open and close them to send out Morse code. Closer we get them to the sun, the smaller they need to be. Not sure how much thrust you would need though to hold position against the solar wind.

    16. Re:How can we communicate with them? by SETIGuy · · Score: 1

      That would have to be a bigger array than any we have on the drawing board. (Assuming you're talking about a broadcast by the most powerful omnidirectional radio station on earth.) Using Arecibo to transmit, then we don't even need an large array on the receiving end. A moderately sized single dish would do. We would need to know where to point Arecibo, though.

    17. Re:How can we communicate with them? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      A slightly longer answer is.. interferometry works well for certain problems, because you can simulate an arbitrarily narrow beam with widely enough spaced receivers. But there's no replacement for total EM-gathering area when it comes to bringing in useful signal.

      If you want to count photons to measure some physical event, it's a good solution. If you want to image a bright object (say, the light side of an extra-solar planet orbiting closely to its star...), it's a good solution. If you want to intercept something you can identify as communication, you're going to need a large total physical area to your antenna, unless the target is trying to communicate with you and pumping as much power as possible on as narrow a beam as they can.

      You can still do it as an array, though, to save on structural costs: You don't necessarily need an actual huge dish like Arecibo. You can gang together a lot of smaller receivers, for frequencies going all the way up to visible.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. Polution by currently_awake · · Score: 1

    I think polution is what you want to look for. If they don't have that then you probably don't want to talk to them anyway because they: 1- are too primitive, have no tech- nothing to trade or steal. 2- are envioro-nazis who will hate us for destroying our enviornment.

    1. Re:Polution by piripiri · · Score: 1

      What? Caring about the environment is being nazi? What kind of fascist are you?

    2. Re:Polution by upuv · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      1. It is not un-reasable that an advanced civ would extend beyond the origin planet to look for resources.
      2. Resource extraction is messy. Waste does need to be dealt with no matter the environment.

      In space you want the waste away from you and with a low probability to collision. The best way is to dump it into gravity wells like gas giants and suns. This is going to give of spectrum of some sort. Consider it spectral pollution The more industrialized the civ the more of this spectrum pollution would be present.

      I would suspect that most "mining" type operations would happen neat gas giants. As the large gravity well would have already created an aggregation of heavy matter. They would to be good locations for slingshot and breaking maneuvers. It seems reasonable to watch the gas giants for unusual spectral emissions.

      Solar mining for radiation and light particles would have very little effluent. So I don't believe there would be much to detect in the form of pollution here.

    3. Re:Polution by Psychotria · · Score: 1

      Umm, yes. But, how do you look for pollution? I.e. what is classed as "pollution" here on earth might be quite normal elsewhere.

    4. Re:Polution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think polution is what you want to look for. If they don't have that then you probably don't want to talk to them anyway because they:
      1- are too primitive, have no tech- nothing to trade or steal.
      2- are envioro-nazis who will hate us for destroying our enviornment.

      Or
      3. they are so advanced that their industry no longer pollutes their living space.

    5. Re:Polution by russotto · · Score: 1

      In space you want the waste away from you and with a low probability to collision. The best way is to dump it into gravity wells like gas giants and suns.

      Why spend so much delta-v? Space is big. Just put the waste into an orbit which doesn't intersect with anything you care about, and you're done. Spending the energy to collide it with the local star is ridiculous.

    6. Re:Polution by RsG · · Score: 1

      Actually, it'd have to be pretty dire waste to make sending it into space the best option, unless the civilization in question has ridiculously low launch costs or is already living and producing waste in space (both possible, mind you). I could see disposal of the worst kind of unreprocessable nuclear waste in this manner, but just about nothing else.

      If you did have waste that was that bad, I doubt you'd want to keep it in orbit. Spending a little extra delta-v to boost it into the nearest gravity well (even just a moon) would be worthwhile.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    7. Re:Polution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling that Gas giant implied a planet.

      But nonetheless, I foresee a future of creating large pieces of waste art, industrial centers could sell waste to celestial artists creating giant, orbiting trash statues.

    8. Re:Polution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      taking any ideology to extremes is fascist.

    9. Re:Polution by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      The cheapest solution is to leave it behind at the mining site or next to the factory. A pile of garbage would make cheap armour against debris strikes and solar radiation. The moons would be covered in tailings, the asteroid belts littered with slag, the outside of the orbital factory covered in bricks of chemical waste. I expect the spectrum given off would contain odd molecular signatures but at low signal levels. Given the orbital nature it should be possible to spot this when it passes in front of the star as a brief repetitive white noise signal pulse in the stars spectrum.

    10. Re:Polution by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 1

      Heed the wisdom of Zapp Brannigan:

      With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me.

    11. Re:Polution by VoidCrow · · Score: 1

      Why not make a big, open-plan, solar-mirror-powered plasma recycling station? Place it in solar orbit, ionise the waste, and separate it using the same principles that you'd use to create a mass spectrometer. This way, you'd get a stockpile of pure elements from your waste.

    12. Re:Polution by risom · · Score: 1

      taking any ideology to extremes is fascist.

      Taking any ideology to extremes is extremist. Fascism is something different.

    13. Re:Polution by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      taking any ideology to extremes is fascist.

      No, it's not. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it fascist. Extreme Buddhists have no ideological connection with extreme neo-Nazis.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Polution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, and ...
      - the sky is really big: we can pump out all the CO2, HCFC, SO2, etc that we want, and it will just dilute. No need to worry
      - the oceans are really big: we can just dump all our trash and ag run-off in there while scraping the bottom to catch every last fish, and it will still nourish us forever.
      - Our rivers are really big: we can dump all our sewage, trash, and oil in there and still take clean drinking water out. We can irrigate the deserts to create rich farmland where no plants grew before, and there will be plenty of water for everyone downstream to do the same.
      - We have huge amounts of topsoil: we can pour chemicals into it all we want while harvesting the same crops year in and year out, and let it blow away during the off-season, without ever worrying about loss of ability to grow crops.
      - We have huge underground aquifers that we can pump plenty of water out of to support any size population, while we prevent re-absorption, and we'll never run out.
      - We have so much easy to obtain fossil fuels that we can keep using them millions of times faster than they accumulate, and never worry about running out (plus the sky is so big that we can just burn, baby, burn, with no adverse affects)
      - low Earth orbit is so big that we can leave all sorts of pieces from space launches just laying around, with no worry about anything running into anything.

    15. Re:Polution by lgw · · Score: 1

      Mussolini had no ideological connection with extreme neo-Nazis either. Fascist these days means "totalitarian", not "racist".

      Plus in Florida there is an actual Green Nazi party on the ballot (with a green swasticka and everyhting).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. Signature on subatomic particles by suso · · Score: 1

    How about instead of just trying to detect other civilizations that exist along side us, also trying to detect ones that came long before in the previous Universe. If the Universe is cyclic and there was another universe before our "big bang", one thing we could do is see if the particles around us have some kind of signature to them that would be unexpected. It may not be possible right now for us to make such signatures, but perhaps a previous civilization built large devices close to the end of the previous universe that could explode once most of the matter of the Universe was closer together and give many particles such a signature.

    The only thing is, how would you determine if something has a signature to it if you have no basis for comparison. Well I guess you could assume that not all the particles had been hit so the test could be to compare some sub atomic particles of one kind with ones of the same kind, but in a different region of space.

    I wrote an article about this 8 years ago. Crazy idea? Perhaps. Sometimes crazy ideas help others think in new ways.

    1. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by JonySuede · · Score: 1

      Kudos, you sounds like a real pseudoscientist !

      --
      Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
    2. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by suso · · Score: 1

      I am a pseudoscientist, as in I'm not really a scientist. But they wanted imagination.

    3. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, say, a huge imbalance between the amount of matter and anti-matter? Or a violation of CP symmetry perhaps?

    4. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup -- not really a scientist is pretty clear there -- muons ARE perfectly fine leptons. Why do you think that in a collapse you'd end up with leptons over hadronic constituents? Or even just the heavy bosons -- in a collapse the distances would presumably get really small so 1/mass ranges would be comparatively large and at some point whether you are a photon or a Z or maybe a Higgs (if it exists) wouldn't matter a hill of beans. We really don't know how gravity behaves at small space scales -- even in a kind of flattish space, much less a space that's all rumpled and crumpled in a collapse. Just can't see how you can tweak the energy around enough to carry information through a re-birth -- at the singularity won't it all be energy soup? Hawking radiation doesn't work in a full collapse because there's no place for the information to come out to -- the space around the singularity is all swept up in the singularity too.

    5. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah those would be interesting -- but if matter/anti-matter were balanced would the bang have ever unfolded? I wouldn't think CP violation would be sufficient -- it's a pretty badly broken symmetry. Now if you could engineer CPT violation in a clever way -- maybe having the violation ride a long wavelength (or long time period -- take your pick) then you'd have a puzzler. You'd have to look back in time (e.g. across space) for CPT violating systems as they've come and gone. CPT violation is hard to measure when you control the dice -- find a signature in the heavens would be a real trick. For the next iteration, maybe you could spell out "Hi There, Aloha, Ni Hao (sorry, we are very powerful universe modifying entities don't have proper Chinese fonts)". On the other hand maybe we'll just put up some "get viagra cheap" spam.

    6. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      We could just keep an eye out for this guy.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    7. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      If the Universe is cyclic and there was another universe before our "big bang", one thing we could do is see if the particles around us have some kind of signature to them that would be unexpected.

      A couple problems here.

      1) What works in Star Trek: TNG cannot be relied upon to work in real life.

      2) The idea of a cyclic "Big Bang" is not consistent with the current understanding of the universe. Thirty years ago people took that concept semi-seriously, or at least didn't have a concrete argument against it - but that was back when they thought the universe's expansion was gradually slowing down rather than accelerating.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      If the universe is cyclic then that means the former civ got squished (or left) and therefore not available for contact.

    9. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Yup -- not really a scientist is pretty clear there

      On the contrary, displaying imagination with the information available in order to hypothesise solutions is perfectly valid science. The only problem is the op hasn't a complete set of information.

    10. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by suso · · Score: 1

      The only problem is the op hasn't a complete set of information.

      Who does?

    11. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      1) What works in Star Trek: TNG cannot be relied upon to work in real life.

      Sokath, his eyes uncovered!

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    12. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      What works in Star Trek: TNG cannot be relied upon to work in real life.

      Get the fuck out of here!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    13. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we could build a starship to search for this signature, and keep heading outbound faster than the speed of light to the very edge of the universe. It could reach into the stars itself for energy. We could use transport rings, or stargates, to go there when we want, as well as exploring everything it passes, rather than spending indefinite time there. Let's call it "Destiny".

      We could even start now, ahead of the technology, by funding research through a TV show.

    14. Re:Signature on subatomic particles by lgw · · Score: 1

      Anything involving a cosmological constant also cannot be relied upon to work in real life. Dark energy; inflationary period; just words for "we don't know".

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  11. They should watch Star Trek et. al. more. by wvmarle · · Score: 1

    They should watch Star Trek et. al. more.
    Or maybe they did just that too much already.

  12. Half assed approaches by unity100 · · Score: 1

    all produced from OUR technology and civilization which were entirely shaped by OUR cultural biases.

    had our cultural biases been different, our technological approaches and means would be different too. see, for example we are just starting to use crystals/light as technology, actually in the very places of other technologies we used before. when all these technologies based on light/crystal interactions are advanced enough, they will definitely shape our culture and expectancies too. what if we had had started those earlier ? or, even, what if we did start out with renewable sources of energy naturally found on our planet ? and our entire manufacturing had been shaped with that ?

    no - science and technology are not independent of societal biases. ALL kinds of approaches may reach the same ultimate point of whatever it will reach in some unknown future point in time, but, the path traveled would be different depending on bias. and that ultimate point seems infinitely far off for us.

    hence the half assedness of approaches.

    1. Re:Half assed approaches by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      I agree, we should search for things we can't think of

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Half assed approaches by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, human activity from space would have been detectable for how many years? 2000? 3000? Likely less.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    3. Re:Half assed approaches by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Worse than that, human activity from space would have been detectable for how many years? 2000? 3000? Likely less.

      Less than 200. Possibly less than 100. Unless by "from space" you mean "from Earth orbit".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:Half assed approaches by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Biologic activity would have been detectable for much longer, though. High concentrations of atmospheric O2 seems pretty suspicious in the presence of lots of things it would like to bond with better.

  13. Overcome speed of light issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would say the best way is to somehow overcome the slowness of light. If you can get your information faster then we then can speed up the process.

    1. Re:Overcome speed of light issues by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      That "somehow" has been proven impossible, information can't be transmitted faster than that or things like perpetual motion (maxwell's demon via altering past choices) and violation of casualty (killing your mother in the past) would be possible.

    2. Re:Overcome speed of light issues by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps these are possible, although perhaps not in the way we imagine now. I'm not saying that, I'm just loosely paraphrasing Michio Kaku.

  14. Part of the electromagnetic spectrum by PuddleBoy · · Score: 1

    If we can detect broadcast emissions that indicate that sitcoms, game shows and reality shows were once broadcast, but have all now disappeared, that would seem to indicate a 'civilization' has finally developed.

    1. Re:Part of the electromagnetic spectrum by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Spock, what's wrong with laughing? You're half-human.

  15. trek trivia by girlintraining · · Score: 1

    Ah, not quite -- the Vulcans had noticed humans before, but considered them to be insufficiently advanced to warrant further study or interest. When the warp signature was detected they decided to investigate. The moral of the story? It's not so much detecting alien life that matters, but attracting interest from alien life. If it's out there, it's looking for us... for better, or for worse. We just need to give them a reason to say hello.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:trek trivia by spliffington · · Score: 1

      Like being a good host or source of protein?

    2. Re:trek trivia by girlintraining · · Score: 1

      Like being a good host or source of protein?

      I think we're flattering ourselves if we think that's what aliens would travel across the universe to suck on our delicious brain meats. In all likelihood, they would be after natural resources, of which the most abundant, and likely useful, materials on this planet would be carbon, silicon, and H2O.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:trek trivia by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      If they are more advanced than we are, they will have little to learn from us, and instead, we will be seen as a competitor for resources, or a more direct threat, or likely to become one. So their best course of action would be to exterminate us.

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    4. Re:trek trivia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they could probably find those resources in their own solar system, even if their particular planet was lacking them. Still not a reason to come over here. It might even be easier to manufacture atomic nuclei using fusors (in even useful quantities) than to travel interstellar distances. A dying star might be reason enough, and even then only if other sources of energy (fissionable/fusionable materal) is not available or if they cannot figure out how to survive the destruction associated with their star leaving the main sequence. By the time they develop practical interstellar travel capabilities, there is a good chance AI will have advanced to the point that their dominant intelligence is not biological in nature, which could greatly affect their need to travel. Knowledge will probably be more desirable than anything else, and travel done because the time delay in information exchange is too painfully slow to stay where they are. In that case, it would only make sense for them to make overtures and emigration to an area of observed higher intelligence.

    5. Re:trek trivia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Resources are still likely better spent observing than acting. A species could wipe out itself or be wiped out by something natural as long as it's planet-bound. Even within a star system, if they still use chemical rockets and similar reaction thrusters, they're not going to be much of a threat to anywhere else.

      Now if I had probes that showed an aggressive species making good progress towards having an interstellar capability, then I would prepare to act. But until that point, it's probably not worth the extra effort involved.

      So in other words, humans here on Earth shouldn't have to worry much until we make a serious run at Alpha or Proxima Centuri. If anybody out there is watching us, it's that moment when they'll take serious notice. Otherwise it's best for them to sit back and stay quiet and unseen so we don't get any crazy ideas.

    6. Re:trek trivia by UtsuMaster · · Score: 1

      I think it is reasonably safe to assume that interplanetary civilizations have access to virtually unlimited resources, the universe being big and all, and that the more advanced, the more resource scarcity gets backwards.

      Even if that isn't the case, what would make our system resources particularly valuable? Unlikely, the table of elements being the same everywhere.

      And all that supposing that advanced technology does not require social progress leading away from belligerence, or that evolution would select for competition modes even without scarcity. Again, unlikely.

      --
      ...or not.
    7. Re:trek trivia by Americano · · Score: 1

      Actually, coming to say "Hey, nice place you've got here, we're going to move in, hope you don't mind," is also more likely than, "Hey, we're going to come hundreds, thousands, or millions of light years to steal your water and ship it home, because that requires far less energy than simply extracting hydrogen and oxygen from our environment back home!" We're certainly not the only source of elements in the universe.

      If they come here for resources, or to feed, they're coming here to stay. Chances are any civilization that has developed the technology to traverse those distances on a civilization-wide scale and has no home to go back to is also going to have no problem exterminating the local vermin that are just infesting that lovely new place they've found.

      We have very little compunction against killing, eating, and exterminating other species that we consider "inferior" or "pests"; is there any reason to believe that alien life, if it exists & showed up in orbit, would feel any differently?

    8. Re:trek trivia by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Maybe they don't want to say "Hello".

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    9. Re:trek trivia by eriqk · · Score: 1

      Like being a good host or source of protein?

      I think we're flattering ourselves if we think that's what aliens would travel across the universe to suck on our delicious brain meats.

      Or they would be disgusted by that.

    10. Re:trek trivia by eriqk · · Score: 1

      (Damn, Camperdave beat me to it.)

  16. Look for Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Point a large two-way radio disk at the planet and allow it to support Internet dial-up - if we see a sudden rise in troll postings on our blogs, we'll know we found 'civilization'...

  17. The sad reality... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sad reality is that humankind has been quarantined into a small bubble less than light-year across. Everything beyond that is essentially a projection, not unlike a movie theatre. They came, they saw us, they decided - nevermore.

    1. Re:The sad reality... by drfreak · · Score: 1

      Ooh, I know this one: The Interstellar Raven. And the the Galaxy quoth: "Nevermore!"

    2. Re:The sad reality... by ZerothAngel · · Score: 1

      Almost sounds like, aptly enough, Quarantine by Greg Egan. Though I could have sworn there was another novel with a similar premise. (Herbert, perhaps?)

    3. Re:The sad reality... by Boronx · · Score: 1

      David Brin, Crystal Spheres

    4. Re:The sad reality... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I think it's probably a falsifiable hypothesis. If we can concentrate research on any arbitrary area and gather ever larger amounts of data from that area and others, we can probably find some way to work out what kind of information processing would be necessary for this simulation to work. I suspect it would turn out to be unrealistic even for alien/made-up tech and even then that's assuming they have some way of knowing which bit we're focusing space telescopes on from moment to moment...

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  18. They are easy to find by xs650 · · Score: 1

    I can find them by looking for concentrations of small ethnic restaurants.

  19. Detecting an alien civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to this, all alien civilizations ought to be as stupid as humanity. Yes I am sure they will want to pollute their atmosphere to make it unbreathable, destroy their biosphere even though they evolved on the very same planet and the outcome of destroying it is likely to be extremely bad, irradiate their grounds, kill people for the sake of money (and continue to lie to them forever even though their population communicates this to each other). If you are looking for an alien civilization than look no further than earth. They are called the other living things.

  20. Regional dimming of the star by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Dyson Sphere would block all light but a massive structure like in Ringworld would cause a dim band around a star rather than the brief dimming that means simply there's a planet. There's no known natural object that would block a region of a star for an extended period. A tight asteroid belt would cause dimming but not block most of the light. Look for a star with a significantly dimmed region or one that appears to be in two parts. Current telescopes would more than likely see most stars are solid even if there was a dim band so when higher powered ones become available it could be another thing to look for.

    1. Re:Regional dimming of the star by RsG · · Score: 1

      A Dyson Sphere would block visible light, but radiate in the infrared with just as much energy as the star it encloses. What you'd see from a distance is a stellar object too cold and too large to be a star, but still highly visible.

      But this assumes that anyone out there is crazy enough to build one of those things in the first place.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:Regional dimming of the star by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      a Ringworld would need the planetary matter of a Neptune and 23,000 years of total solar output to spin up to 1G.....bad budget issue for our aliens, they'd do something simpler like many solar powered rotating space stations.

    3. Re:Regional dimming of the star by mbone · · Score: 1

      A Dyson Sphere would block all light but a massive structure like in Ringworld would cause a dim band around a star rather than the brief dimming that means simply there's a planet. There's no known natural object that would block a region of a star for an extended period. A tight asteroid belt would cause dimming but not block most of the light. Look for a star with a significantly dimmed region or one that appears to be in two parts. Current telescopes would more than likely see most stars are solid even if there was a dim band so when higher powered ones become available it could be another thing to look for.

      Luc Arnold looked into this and concluded that

      Multiple artificial objects would produce light curves easily distinguishable from natural transits.

      He is including structures like the Ring World (or the Culture's Orbitals) in such "multiple artificial objects."

  21. just them them all iPhones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they send them back, they're intelligent.

  22. Dyson Spheres by mbone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dyson spheres (or swarms) would probably be the best way to detect an advanced civilization, especially a Kardashev Type II or Type III civilization.

    In a Dyson sphere (or swarm) a civilization surrounds an entire star to capture most or all of its luminosity; severely cutting down on its optical luminosity but accentuating the IR luminosity. (The physics of a rigid sphere surrounding a star are pretty challenging, and some sort of swarm or cloud seems more likely, at least to our limited technological understanding.) So, to hunt for a Dyson sphere, you look for objects with an unusual excess of IR, and a lack of optical light. The IRAS IR satellite was used to search for Dyson spheres within ~ 1000 light years of the Earth (producing a handful of so-so candidates). Carrigan calls these sorts of searches "Interstellar Archaeology." They have one great advantage in that they don't require any cooperation from the other end (i.e., no beacons or other signals).

    As it happens, I have recently speculated that "Object X" in M33 (the Triangulum Galaxy) could represent the signature of a Dyson sphere / swarm from 3 million light years away. If this (unlikely) possibility were to be true, it would represent the signature of a Kardashev Type III or near Type III civilization. Interstellar Archaeology is the only possible form of SETI across such vast distances.

    1. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting... Thanks!

    2. Re:Dyson Spheres by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      From our current understanding, a Dyson sphere is impossible. Considering the rotation, the centers of rotation should collapse into the star. Though maybe this isn't so with one that isn't rotating.

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    3. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dyson spheres (or swarms) would probably be the best way to detect an advanced civilization, especially a Kardashev Type II or Type III civilization.

      This is true maybe if you live in Science Fiction world.

      Back in the real world, let's look at history. Every few hundred years or so our entire view of the universe is turned on its head. Flat becomes round, center becomes periphery, 6000 years becomes 14 billion, etc. Our view now is probably not much closer to the truth than our ancestors. Our perception, filtered through the limited senses and intellect, only gives us tunnel vision. Technology based on electromagnetism would have been considered witchcraft in the past. We have no idea what dimensions, forces, etc are still yet to be discovered, and perhaps most intelligent civilizations have found ways to inhabit alternate spaces. Thinking simply of the planet-star civilization model is overly human-centric.

    4. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dyson Spheres are an excellent solution, and truly demonstrate intelligence use, with their ability to manipulate a vacuum (just like outer space!) yet steer around all obstacles effortlessly.

      The problem will be detection, as my Dyson is in the closet for most of the time, except the occasional use in my satellite wave receiving room.

    5. Re:Dyson Spheres by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      So thats why they call that vacuum a Dyson ball.

      Learn something new and important every day.

    6. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean they were a Type |||, 3 million years ago.

    7. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, Dyson himself used the term sphere to refer to a cloud of satellites, not a rigid body. That's a bad extrapolation by people who can't be arsed to read -- unfortunately, it's become so widespread it's now a second meaning, which is why GP had to waste words clarifying... which apparently did no good.

      Second, yes, it's conceivable to have a bubble with realistic tech, supported by either radiation pressure or solar wind pressure. Just no good way of deploying it.

    8. Re:Dyson Spheres by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The linked PDF you provided speculates that "object X" might be a self-obscured star, obscured by its own ejecta.

      If we assume that this is indeed a dyson swarm, then the purpose might not be exclusively for collecting energy.

      A category II or III civilization would be doing asto-architecture, and would need tremendous amounts of raw materials. Heavy atoms are only produced naturally in one kind of environment: in the hearts of stars. If this star is regularly expelling large quantities of cosmic dust, as the linked article postulates, then it would make an excellent "Factory". Energy would be in copious abundance, and the star itself would be churning out millions of tons of heavy atoms every minute. Even with a short (compared to other stars) lifespan, it would make an excellent factory site for other large astro-engineering projects.

      It would be far more economical than mechanically processing already aggregated matter clumps (planets, asteroids, etc)-- especially with a dyson sphere/swarm infrastructure. The emitted gas and dust would be strongly ionized, and a simple network of magnetic traps could passively funnel the more desirable metal and halide ions from the lighter non-metals, with very minimal post processing. It would go a long way toward eliminating material scarcity issues that would otherwise plague a category II or III civilization.

      Spectrographic analysis of the dust cloud to see if it has an uneven distribution of heavy and light elements would be quite revealing if this is the case-- Heavy ions would be in greater concentrations nearer the solar mass than away from it-- contrary to what you would expect if it was merely a gravitationally bound stellar dust cloud. (the latter would have a fairly uniform distribution of dust and gas)

      Sadly, since it is in another galaxy such spectrographic studies are not very easy to do in sufficient resolutions to make such distinctions. It would need to transit some other more luminous celestial object in order for us to get such a reading, so that the invisible gas envelope surrounding the object could be studied, but again, it being in a distant galaxy coupled with the slow rate of orbital rotation of stars around a galactic center mass makes this a wait that could be billions of years long for such an event.

      I agree that it is a very interesting object though.

    9. Re:Dyson Spheres by Maritz · · Score: 1

      This vaguely sounds like an apology for postmodernism. The opinion you have that we are not much closer to the 'truth' than our ancestors depends on what you mean by 'truth'. Any perspective-shattering discoveries that happen now are still not necessarily going to overturn discoveries we've already made. I don't think we're going to change our minds about whether the earth goes around the sun. Science is progressive. It seems that any new forces would have to be exceptionally weak in their effects in order to have remained undiscovered so far. I agree that when it comes to SETI we're probably not looking for the best signatures but we are best to look where the light is good at least initially, hence the Kepler telescope, which will hopefully one day be followed up by the currently mothballed Terrestrial Planet Finder.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    10. Re:Dyson Spheres by mbone · · Score: 2

      The linked PDF you provided speculates that "object X" might be a self-obscured star, obscured by its own ejecta.

      If we assume that this is indeed a dyson swarm, then the purpose might not be exclusively for collecting energy.

      A category II or III civilization would be doing asto-architecture, and would need tremendous amounts of raw materials. Heavy atoms are only produced naturally in one kind of environment: in the hearts of stars. If this star is regularly expelling large quantities of cosmic dust, as the linked article postulates, then it would make an excellent "Factory". Energy would be in copious abundance, and the star itself would be churning out millions of tons of heavy atoms every minute. Even with a short (compared to other stars) lifespan, it would make an excellent factory site for other large astro-engineering projects.

      Yes, that was sort of along the lines of my thought. This seems like a poor location for a long-term agricultural project, but conceivably an excellent site for astroengineering. In that case there might be detectable byproducts (for example,as you suggest, the distributions of various elements might be depleted or rearranged). Also, they might use nuclear fusion to synthesize missing very heavy elements or for some other purpose requiring high energies (there is, after all, lots of gas as well), and that might have a detectable signature at high energies.

      Finally, Luc Arnold has an interesting paper about detection of artificial structures in transit about their star, and concludes that "multiple artificial objects would produce light curves easily distinguishable from natural transits." If the purpose of this megaengineering is to build structures (or coherent swarms) on a suitable scale, they might be detected in transit about the central star, which might provide the most conclusive proof of all.

    11. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope our understanding of physics is mediocre at best, because otherwise there should be no Kardashev Type II or III civilizations.

      From what we know now, FTL travel is infeasible and at best we can hope to communicate with other civilizations using the Sun as a gravitational lens. This would imply latencies ranging from hundreds to tens of thousands of years -- more than is required for a civilization to self-destruct. And that by itself is a very challenging proposition, because it would require sending a probe out to ~500 A.U., where the focal point of the lens is (if I'm not mistaken).

    12. Re:Dyson Spheres by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I think my take on this would be that any civilization that has the ability to build a Dyson Sphere, could likely A) drop in for lunch any time they wanted to, and B) totally annihilate us in some unusual and interesting way.

      Not to be Xenophobic but I'm just saying we might not want to try and draw attention to ourselves.

      Then again with that technology, I would go with the assumption that by the time we detect them, they have already detected us a long time ago and can read you licence place number if they really want to.

      The only way this might be wrong is if they perceive time differently than we do and until we exist for a few million years we are nothing more than a blip. Then again that's pretty outrageous but who knows...

    13. Re:Dyson Spheres by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sunsets would be less fun

    14. Re:Dyson Spheres by Orga · · Score: 1

      A black hole would be more efficient and not only that.. more difficult to detect from the outside, because who wants to be found anyway.

    15. Re:Dyson Spheres by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Leaving to the reader the details of how to drop Mercury into the sun,

      I like this Carrigan person's style.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  23. LHC by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    If you want to communicate with the other intelligent races in the Universe, go help the LHC.

    Steps:
    1) figure out physics
    2) build the most promising communicator or detector
    3) try, wait, try, wait, try, wait.
    4) goto 2

    We're making progress on step 1) but step 2) is far too premature at this point.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:LHC by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Fermilab has been producing intermittent neutrino streams from their accelerator for some time now. Thatis probably a really good signaling device as they can be detected even with our current technology. The problem for us detecting something like that now is that we don't have directionality with existing neutrino detectors and imparting that might be rather challanging.

      Certainly LHC is going to be producing more neutrinos as well.

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

      Fermilab has been producing intermittent neutrino streams from their accelerator for some time now. Thatis probably a really good signaling device as they can be detected even with our current technology. The problem for us detecting something like that now is that we don't have directionality with existing neutrino detectors and imparting that might be rather challanging.

      Certainly LHC is going to be producing more neutrinos as well.

      We have directionality with current neutrino detectors. Take superK for example, neutrinos interacting with the water will generate a cone of cherenkov radiation that the photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) will be able to convert to a rough track. With more PMTs, you can get better resolution and get more accurate tracks letting you figure out where the neutrinos are coming from. It's very doable and has been done.

    3. Re:LHC by rubycodez · · Score: 1
  24. McAliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well duh... just look for the golden arches!

  25. Use genetically engineered insects. by elucido · · Score: 0

    Genetically engineer them to assist with terraforming and use robotic fake insects to probe the planet and look for signs of life.

    The point is if there is intelligent life, they'll probably be less evolved than insects and certainly wont be able to kill them without us finding out.

    And if the planet is so far away that we cannot put probes or genetically engineered insects on that planet then finding life on that planet would be irrelevant since we can't reach that planet physically. So even if we could remotely detect life with some advanced telescope it wont really help if it's across the galaxy.

    1. Re:Use genetically engineered insects. by lasinge · · Score: 1

      We already tried this on a planet called Earth eons ago. The ape descendants are currently dominant, but their time will pass and the other citizens of that planet will have their epoch as well, all representatives of the species in the galactic neighborhood, although in most cases a mere shadow of their cousin species in their respective star systems. Once they get all that xenophobia and resource scarcity out of their systems we will return, but for now we are sending them terabytes of transmissions per second, mostly pr0n, because they simply reproduce way too often, some decided it would be funny for the apes to mate whether in estrous or not, that engineer has been sacked and sent to a dark corner of the universe.

      --
      you are in a twisty maze of different passages.
  26. fun but pointless exercise. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    The 'math' on aliens doesn't really work out in favor of them being anything we can comprehend, much less communicate with, even if you believe as I do that the existence of alien races is almost a mathematical certainty.

    Here goes:
    Age of universe, something around 14 gy (gigayears).
    Age of earth, around 4.5 gy.
    (Now, it's reasonably certain that the solar system is actually at least 'round 2' in this neighborhood - due to the presence of trans-iron elements, etc. At least one generation of stars in the area coalesced, evolved, and exploded spewing these deep stellar fusion products across the area. Given the known distribution of these heavy elements, it's likely that the pre-solar-system planetary nebula was created by both ejecta from red giants and multiple erupting giant stars. Giant stars have extremely short life spans, on the order of 100 megayears, so let's consider generously that process took about 1 gy in total.)
    So...from nothing to us = ~5.5gy.
    Let's assume our evolutionary track and our star are entirely average.
    It's taken our planet 5.5gy to produce a space-traveling, sentient species. (No, we're not there yet, but probably less that 500 years, so bear with me.) We as recognizable members of our species have been around perhaps 2 my.

    Assuming any other suitable system (and I'd guess that there are hundreds of millions) could do the same, and further assume that the early universe was simply uninhabitable for whatever reason for at least 4 gy. That means any other species is going to be anywhere on the scale of evolution, from say (us minus 2 my) to (us+4 gy). Think about that scale.

    If it were represented by a 2 meter stick, all of human existence (2my) is the first millimeter.

    You tell me, are we LIKELY to run into a species in the first millimeter of that stick (ie find some species grubbing around as cavemen, once we start exploring)? What are the odds that we brush up against a civilization only a few thousand years more advanced (ie classic "spaceships" and recognizable "explorers", etc) - say something like the next 1 or 2 nanometers on that 2 meter stick?

    Or is it far, far, far more likely that other species, on average are likely to be hundreds of millions, or billions of years more advanced than us? Then ask yourself - could we see them, no matter how hard we tried, if they didn't want us to? A *BILLION* years more advanced, presumably with the increasing rate of technological development that we see here on Earth? Assuming they would even deign to watch us, like we occasionally stop and are amused at ants working to busily on the sidewalk...do ants have any idea they're being observed? Could they even comprehend us? They truly would be gods, and (I imagine, by their standards although human logic almost certainly doesn't apply) it would have to be one seriously farked-up individual of theirs that would actually try to relate to we ants. Hell, from that perspective, things we take to be absolutely natural phenomena like volcanoes and earthquakes, could easily be a bored alien adolescent screwing with us.

    So that's my case - the likelihood of us encountering an alien race of only a "little" more advanced tech is vanishingly, almost impossibly small. The only caveat would be that this immediate stellar neighborhood, say 100ly radius, almost certainly all an identical 'environment', and the chance of parallel evolution occurring close in time might be even an order of magnitude higher than the 'open' universe in general. But that's an order of magnitude on a very, very small number to start.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by RsG · · Score: 1

      The most logical ways I've seen of resolving this are:

      1) There are no aliens, at least not of the tool using, technological, civilized, space-faring variety.

      2) There were aliens; intelligence tends to self-destruct.

      Or, my personal favourite:

      3) There are aliens, but the galaxy is huge, and they stick to their own corner of it.

      This third one makes sense if you assume that there is no "silver bullet" approach to interstellar spaceflight, and that it really would take the wealth of several planets to send a large interstellar craft at a significant fraction of lightspeed. In this interpretation, we can't "see" intelligent life, because it isn't proximate to our star system, and hasn't expanded beyond their own.

      If the nearest civilization is five hundred lightyears distant and doesn't leave their solar system, then they could easily have existed there for the last X megayears undisturbed.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    2. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I agree any civilisation we could possibly detect is likely to be either way more advanced or less advanced than us, and seeing as less advanced basically means pre-industrial we probably wouldn't be able to detect them at all. One minor point I would raise is that our sun's local environment does not appear to be the area that it formed in. The sun's stellar siblings are likely far away from us now. The stars in our local region now do not appear to share chemistry with the sun in a manner that would indicate they formed in the same spacial/temporal locality.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    3. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by hao3 · · Score: 1

      Giga years? WTF? And then, of course, you go on to use billion years later on in your post..

      --
      "Impartiality is a pompous name for indifference, which is an elegant name for ignorance." - G.K. Chesterton
    4. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Not sure what your point is? They mean the same thing, and can be used interchangably...I'm sorry if that confused you.

      If you need an explanation: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+gigayear

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Giga years? WTF? And then, of course, you go on to use billion years later on in your post..

      GP should be banned from the internets for a few days and forced to write lines on a blackboard a la Bart Simpson.

      I will not make up stupid confusing pseudo-scientific terms again. I will not...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, it is a real term, and not at all uncommon. Second, if you get confused trying to figure out what the prefix "giga" could possibly mean, you are the one who is stupid.

      It means the same thing it does in the words gigabyte, gigatonne, and gigajoule.

    7. Re:fun but pointless exercise. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      2^30 years?

  27. Define intelligence by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Will be slaves of an expanding culture like us or simply will try to enjoy their lives while it lasts? Intelligence don't imply culture, civilization don't imply changing their planet or solar system in a way visible from here.

    I suppose that the question of if will ever be able to be surpassed the speed of light could matter here. If don't, will matter very little if we find something weird far away from here. And if the speed of light is not the limit, and they could figure how to surpass it in practice, probably will try to make hard to spot them, always could be around a bigger fish.

    We could try instead to figure how to communicate or understand intelligences (whales, dolphins, others) and civilizations (ants? bees?) that are right here to see what we could expect out there and our chances to detect them in our current stage.

    1. Re:Define intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alien intelligences should tend to expand. If any breakaway sect in an alien civilization is prone to expansion, it will eventually overtake and become dominant over the non-expansive part. It's simple natural selection.

  28. Just send a colony ship. by mmmmbeer · · Score: 1

    If movies have taught us anything, it's that every colony ship ever is bound to encounter some form of intelligent life. Hollywood wouldn't lie to us, right?

    1. Re:Just send a colony ship. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that it encounters a scout and gets shot down. *cries*

  29. Maybe by future+assassin · · Score: 0

    they don't want to be found. If I was an Alien I sure as hell wouldn't want to meet humans or be found by them.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  30. Polo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have they tried getting an astronaut to yell, "Marco?!" really loud out in space?

    1. Re:Polo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has hollywood taught you nothing? In space, no-one can hear you yell "Marco" - even if assisted by extraneous punctuation.

  31. We may not like what we find. by elucido · · Score: 0

    Sometimes its better to sense and discover, and not communicate. Communication with an advanced alien lifeforn can lead to us being infected by deadly memes/ideas.

    1. Re:We may not like what we find. by Maritz · · Score: 1

      We're already infected by deadly memes (religions). Doesn't get much more 'deadly' to the individual than strapping on an explosive vest. ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  32. Funding more important than brainstorming. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 2

    At this point, funding is more important than brainstorming. The Allen Array which does much of the basic SETI work is going to be essentially inoperative for about a year due to a severe shortage of funds. See http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/04/25/seti/index.html?hpt=C1. Right now, the main thing that is needed is cash not more ideas. So go over to SETI.org and donate.

    1. Re:Funding more important than brainstorming. by FatherOfThree · · Score: 1

      More money? What is the point? They are already here! Most of us already know it and are waiting for government acknowledgement. Maybe WIKI Leaks will shed some light on the subject. I have supported SETI in the past, dedicating a whole lab of high powered machines to help analyze the data, but now I think the money could be better spent researching our DNA for example. Perhaps there is a message there. I think they will get in touch with us when they think we are ready.

  33. RE:Decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have assessed the conditions and organisms on Earth and decided it wasn't of any interest/use to us.
    Please do not waste your resources to look for us.

    Yours Truly
    Your Favourite Alien

  34. Morse Code over 50 LY path! by DesertNomad · · Score: 1

    Typical deep space comm channels run into the Ka-band spectrum (26-40GHz). The path loss at 32 GHz, between the two stations separated by 50 LY, is an unimaginably large 416dB. Taking the largest fully steerable dish on earth (DSN 70m dish), running at a communications frequency of 32GHz, 400kW transmitter output, and a communications bandwidth that's good enough for 20 word-per-minute Morse code, one could theoretically close the circuit between an identically equipped station 50 LY distant. You could possibly signal somewhere around 300 baud hayes modem speeds circa 1980 if you really worked at it.

    http://www.propagation.gatech.edu/ECE6390/project/Fall2010/Projects/group7/Project%20Website_v3_files/Page550.htm

  35. Alien Life Test by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 3, Funny

    1) Rotation wobbles more on Friday nights
    2) Neon light from dark side
    3) Traces of THC in the upper atmosphere
    4) SETI calls go into voicemail

  36. Star Harvest by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1
    We are so far away, that it's pretty unlikely that we would see anything small. So let's make a few assumptions and extrapolate to the absurd.

    1) Intelligent life is fairly common.

    2) We are somewhere in the middle of the bell curve advancement wise.

    3) Really advanced races harvest stars for their energy and matter.

    Thus, all we need to do is look for stars disappearing in an orderly fashion, and we've got the proof (and then we should hope like heck they don't stumble across our solar system with its moist chewy centre)

    1. Re:Star Harvest by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up

    2. Re:Star Harvest by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      3) Really advanced races harvest stars for their energy and matter.

      Well, either that or they regularly blow them up as a part of ongoing conflicts.

  37. That just raises different questions by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    The detection of an atomic bomb throws off a unique signature not found in nature.

    True but the question we then have to ask is do we want to contact an alien civilization that is throwing atomic bombs around...and is there any point given that chance are they will not be around for much longer? Even then atomic bombs are not that powerful considering that the planet is sitting not that far from a thermonuclear furnace many orders of magnitude larger than the entire planet.

    1. Re:That just raises different questions by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Hypothetical event, but what if aliens visited Roswell NM in 1947 because of the first bomb set off in 1945? What if the energy released by that explosion transcended space/time and created a unique signature at the quantum level only detectable with advanced alien technology? An instantaneous notification of our existence across the universe. By chance, they detected us. And the rest they say is history.

      At best, it makes for some good SciFi. But who really knows for sure...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:That just raises different questions by RsG · · Score: 1

      Actually, that would make good scifi, at least of the soft-ish variety. Possibility: a story in which an observation station in the outer solar system picks up the atomic bomb blasts in '45 and alerts someone to come investigate, with a two-year lag in arrival explained by the alien spacecraft taking that long to get here (it'd have to be FTL, two light years is too close for anything else).

      It even makes sense if the arriving scout ship aims for the American southwest and not Japan; they'd be going for the Trinity site first.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:That just raises different questions by the+enemies+of+god · · Score: 1

      and with all that advanced tech they then couldn't stop quick enough to avoid hitting the planet - yeah that makes sense. and *then* they "transcended space/time" ...

      --
      "this can do no harm to the intelligent and the unintelligent be damned" -ezra pound
    4. Re:That just raises different questions by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      What if the energy released by that explosion transcended space/time and created a unique signature at the quantum level only detectable with advanced alien technology?

      We would know because we have the technology to detect it today. In fact the Large Hadron Collider is millions of times more powerful than an atomic bomb (but on a smaller scale obviously) and anything like a Black Hole would be readily detectable.

  38. or have developed Fusion by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    If they don't have that then you probably don't want to talk to them anyway because they: 1- are too primitive, have no tech- nothing to trade or steal. 2- are envioro-nazis

    ...or 3- have developed a clean source of power like fusion. In which case we very much would like to talk to them.

    1. Re:or have developed Fusion by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Pollution from power makes up a small part of total pollution (on earth agriculture and textiles are huge). I expect mine tailings and industrial/chemical waste will be extensive even with fusion.

    2. Re:or have developed Fusion by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      fusion: in which case you check their atmosphere for extra helium and the aliens for an extra arm.

    3. Re:or have developed Fusion by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Helium escapes the atmosphere of non-gas giant planets...and, apart from not knowing the number of arms to expect why would fusion have any bearing on this?

  39. Good point, but: Have you seen "The FINAL EXAM"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From "THE OUTER LIMITS"? If not, do... I *think* you'll love it & especially based on what you've stated (& I've always felt the same, because the SECOND we detonated one? Well, not so long afterwards, this happened too -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1952_Washington_D.C._UFO_incident ):

    Anyhow, just for you (since "great minds think alike")?

    ---

    THE FINAL EXAM:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvjJYAzwxjE

    ---

    ... * Enjoy!

    APK

    P.S.=> I really liked the main character... it's just too bad life made him do the thing he did & I liked how he used the principal of "When a science is ready...?" (see it)

    ... apk

  40. How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This step is simple: invent an FTL method of communication.

    The reasoning is also simple. If we can have FTL then it is a given that all developed civilizations are using it. Radio is simply too slow. We don't use pigeons anymore to send messages, do we? So why do we expect an alien civilization to spend terawatts of energy and thousands of years to blast radio signals into space?

    But if we can't have FTL then pretty much we are prisoners of our star system. Perhaps generation ships can export our genes to other stars, but that is unlikely, and we will never [in practical terms] know how they fared. Ping times of thousands of years are simply out of our time scale, until we all become cyborgs or beings of pure energy.

    So that's why FTL is the only possible solution. Anything less is just a waste of money and effort. This effort should be invested into science, in every way possible. Even if FTL is absolutely impossible in our Universe, perhaps we will find a neighboring Universe with physical laws that are more to our liking.

    1. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by inviolet · · Score: 0

      But if we can't have FTL then pretty much we are prisoners of our star system. Perhaps generation ships can export our genes to other stars, but that is unlikely, and we will never [in practical terms] know how they fared. Ping times of thousands of years are simply out of our time scale, until we all become cyborgs or beings of pure energy.

      You talk as though meat-based intelligence is the stable outcome. The intelligence to come after us will look back on meat-based computation as a flash in the evolutionary pan.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    2. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      so we should dump our money on every wormhole theorist we can find? hell no....

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      You talk as though meat-based intelligence is the stable outcome. The intelligence to come after us will look back on meat-based computation as a flash in the evolutionary pan.

      No, I actually would prefer the transition - it would mean eternal life, among other things. The problem is that FTL looks like child's play compared to converting everything that we are into ethereal beings.

      And there is yet another problem that is related to the main thread. If most civilizations cast away their biological framework and converted themselves into something else, it would only make it more difficult for us to communicate with them. Bacteria may try to talk to us, but we don't listen - on our scale of things they are nothing. A galaxy-sized sentient being will not pay much attention to our transmissions, and any transmissions of that being will be seen by us as white noise (UWB) if even we are capable of tapping into the carrier - and the carrier could be something that we haven't discovered yet. Radio is utterly useless in space, just like shouting across the Pacific ocean.

    4. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      so we should dump our money on every wormhole theorist we can find? hell no....

      We (or the government) are dumping our money in so many hopeless black holes, a few measly millions per theorist won't even register.

      But if you insist on your approach ... ok, let's starve our brightest minds, force them out of scientific work - someone has to serve food at McDonalds, after all, to people who *really* advance the society - insurance agents, traders, bankers, advertisers, politicians...

    5. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of cyborgism, it sounds like it might possibly be the only way humans will reach the starts reliably.

      At some point soon, we will have cracked biology and fully understand how all our molecules interact, will know how to grow a human from scratch, etc.
      We have already been doing cyborgism for many, many years now, but full-on cyborgism to replace pretty much all parts of a human is something we haven't really done yet.
      And there is the whole part of replacing a persons brain we might not want to play around with since it could possibly kill what is considered consciousness. (which we still don't truly understand yet, it could well be "magicks", we just don't know, and may well never know, but that is a different discussion)
      Anyway, so, pretty much the only thing we could do there is rewrite the genome to create better brains, more efficient brains.
      Nanobots will deal with damage and cleanup, we'll most likely develop those as solutions to the ever-increasing crap in our brains than we will through biology.

      This way, we will even be able to place ourselves in hibernation, we wouldn't even need a generation ship for this method, just any old space ship.
      We wouldn't even need to hibernate, but tens of thousands of years, possibly even hundreds, might get a bit boring after a while on a probably small space ship.

    6. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no point in FTL communication if we don't learn to actually communicate first though. We can't expect ETs and ALFs to magically understand obscure TLAs.

    7. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Neutrino's could be beamed like a laser......?
      And if we knew how to detect them better than this..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

    8. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This step is simple: invent magical fairy dust.

      And so on.

    9. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, come on, this isn't insightful. Just invent FTL comms? Great. How are they going to work then? Will that give us instant access to the intergalactic network? How will that suddenly tell us which planets have intelligent life?

      So that's why FTL is the only possible solution.

      It's not a solution, and it's probably not possible. It's highly implausible, given our current understanding of physics.

    10. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You've been reading too many (or not the correct) scifi books. There is no FTL. Get over it.
      Learn about relativity. Travel to another start system within your life time is definitely possible. Unfortunately your friends and family back on earth will be long gone by the time you get back.

    11. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by TheEmptySet · · Score: 1

      Good point, but sadly faster than light communication allows messages to be sent back in time (due to special relativity). So once we invent FTL communication were going to be more worried about some severe problems with causality than about aliens many light years away.

    12. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTL Communication... sure. Simple! And while you're at it, devise a method of shitting diamonds.

    13. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You talk as though meat-based intelligence is the stable outcome. The intelligence to come after us will look back on meat-based computation as a flash in the evolutionary pan.

      Yada yada, singularity, yada yada.

      Most of the fun in life comes from being meat-based.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if anyone else caught the Feynman reference

    15. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      Travel to another star system within your lifetime is definitely possible. Unfortunately your friends and family back on earth will be long gone by the time you get back.

      As I said, such things are not politically possible in a society of mortals. Besides, what about stars that are away a bit longer than your lifetime? Are they forever closed to us, or we need to spend centuries on every hop? That just doesn't make sense. Kon-Tiki crossed the ocean, but how many passengers would you find for it today? That's because most people want to live a meaningful life. Living in a tin can for decades is not meaningful, and is likely to make the man crazy.

    16. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by myrdos2 · · Score: 1

      What if FTL communication doesn't exist?

    17. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      What if FTL communication doesn't exist?

      I already mentioned what happens then. I fully understand that impossibility of FTL is what current theories imply. Basically these things happen:

      1. Don't try to listen to radio communications of other civilizations, and don't transmit on your own. Nobody who lives on our time scale will be using these methods to communicate (see the end of this post for more on the time scale.) Absence of signals will only demoralize you.
      2. Since FTL is impossible, effective interstellar communication is also impossible.
      3. Your best bet is to send colonists - either in generation ships or in state of hibernation - to other stars, in attempt to colonize their planets. Chances of their success are nearly zero, since they don't have fuel for changing the course or returning.

      In essence, impossibility of FTL in this Universe makes many things impossible. The humanity still may spread to the stars, eventually and with great losses, but we will not know about it in any reasonable time. For all practical reasons they would be completely cut off from Earth, forever. Other posters mentioned colonies in the New World - they were very different because you could send a letter, you could invite your relatives, and you could return (ships that came from Europe returned back to Europe, they weren't a one-way things.)

      With regard to the losses: we will have to send a ship to each interesting star, even though we can't guarantee that it has planets that we can live on (and that those planets are not already inhabited.) ETs will be in the same boat - they can develop their science for millions of years but if FTL is not possible to us it is equally impossible to them. We have people (more than we need) to send, and maybe there will be volunteers for such a suicidal mission. But we don't have ships; and those ships require new engines - nuclear, perhaps, for high impulse mode and ion for low impulse. There is a lot of work that must be done before we can send one ship to one nearest star. We plain don't have such a ship today, even for a robot, let alone for a number of people and for a number of years.

      So again everything points at the science (and technology) as necessary components in us making the next step, regardless of availability of FTL in this Universe. When we can ride across the Solar system with relative ease then we can start considering farther voyages. Of course if we get lucky and FTL transportation is available then we can do both at the same time.

      But ultimately, FTL or not, we will have to move on and at some point abandon the wetware that our code is currently running on. It is slow and fragile. Once transfer of consciousness into an external piece of hardware becomes possible, dying people will be first to try it out. The medical advances, however great, will be still limited by the physical viability of the brain, so there *will* be volunteers. And once we are running on neural nets, have backups and can operate any machinery we want (depending on what we need to do) then we will be on the next stage of development, when time is not that essential and willing individuals can travel in space for thousands of years. If they slow the clock down on their neural nets they can see this as an instant in time - and since everyone is immortal they will not lose any of their friends or relatives.

    18. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      This step is simple: invent magical fairy dust.

      As matter of fact, we are communicating using magical fairy dust precisely sprinkled onto the surface of amazingly pure silicon. Any educated gentleman in 1900's would say so.

    19. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You didn't read up on relativity like I suggested. If you were traveling at a signifigant fraction of the speed of light then you could travel to most stars in our galaxy within your lifetime due to time dilation. Time would slow for you and while it would appear to take you 5000 years (or whatever) to an outside observer, depending on your speed it would take you far far less. The closer to the speed of light you traveled, the more dramatic affect.

      Provided you find a way to shovel unimaginable amounts of energy into your spacecraft to get you close enough to the speed of light you could theoretically travel anywhere in the universe... unless the universe is infinite. In practical terms it's pretty unlikely you could find the enough power to travel fast enough to make it outside our galaxy... or even very far across it. But at least it's scientifically possible... where as FTL is completely impossible.

      There is one physical limitation to this whole procedure which is acceleration. The human body can only withstand about 10-20Gs before getting squished. So, unless we can find a way around that you may be limited in how fast you can get going within your lifetime. If you want to get up to 99.99999999999999~% the speed of light, 20Gs just isn't going to do it. Then you get into downloading your mind into a computer... and is that really you anymore? We have to start talking about souls and such... blah blah blah

    20. Re:How to discover aliens in one almost easy step by tftp · · Score: 1

      I know about relativity effects. However you know perfectly well that these effects require a good fraction of light speed to become significant. So there are two problems. First, we don't have the technology to accelerate anywhere near light speed, or even to 1% of it. The record, I believe, is about 0.03% of c, and it used gravity assist that would be impractical (and likely deadly) for live people. There are no relativistic effects at that speed that would be of practical interest to anyone except physicists. Second, as you say, we are limited by the acceleration. Our native acceleration is about 10 m/s per second, so if you want to get to c you need about 1 year of constant acceleration. We are still talking about some serious time, even if we have an engine that can work for a year non-stop (and for another year to slow down.) We can overcome both problems with the right technology - just as I said in one of earlier messages. But launching chemical rockets at great cost will not get us any closer to that goal; it will only waste money that could be better spent on science.

  41. Easy: by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    Anything but radio. We'd highly unlikely to find ETs broadcasting in the electromagnetic spectrum at all.

    If our civilization is anything to go by, the uptake of fibre optics and low-power short range wireless communication means broadcasting high power transmissions was a brief abberation in history.

    Obviously Interstellar communication by light is futile. At best a civilization may do in-system communication by high power highly focused laser beams. We may by chance catch a brief flash of coherent light as a misdirected beam is aimed at our system by chance.

    Our own communications infrastructure turns ever inward, becomes more focused and less leaky. To a hypothetical ET observer the earth must slowly falling silent.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  42. This is pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When we find alien civilization we will not need subtle trace elements in the atmosphere. Either they will be way more advanced than us, in which case they will prolly just say "hi". Or we will stumble across a planet with odd spectra of light coming off. Some grad student or post doc will publish a paper one this penom and slashdot will pick it up. Then some one will comment that the only explanation for the given observation is civilization. Then CNN will take over and Fox will call them ungodly and we will start the invasion. Simple. ~Ben

  43. There are 130 stars within 20 light years by voss · · Score: 1

    Even if none of these planets have intelligent life, its still worth taking a look. A habitable world in another star system say 20 years travel away is hardly too far to "know what happened". A world in another star system that can support human life is a "game changer".

    1. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by tftp · · Score: 1

      A habitable world in another star system say 20 years travel away is hardly too far to "know what happened".

      I'm not sure if we can develop a machine that can be sent for a 20 years (one way) trip and do all the research completely independently and efficiently. It actually is a job for an AI - we need better robots; another science problem right here. The main problem, however, is not technical - the trip will take 40-45 years, and youngsters who paid for it will be senior citizens when the probe returns. Politically, in a democracy, the majority of population will not buy into this project. You need an enlightened dictator to do this.

      The return of the probe is another problem. Our technology requires the probe to carry the fuel for the return trip. This is likely impossible mathematically. Most of our probes are one-way designs. But this one has to return, or at least come close to Earth to upload data. Probably it will not be allowed to enter LEO, it will stay in orbit around the Sun about 10 degrees away from Earth. So again we need new physics, new engines, new propulsion methods.

      And even if the probe reports that a planet out there is another Earth ... what can we do about it? Only one thing: send a manned expedition. And since the people can't take acceleration that a robot is comfortable with, the round trip will take another 50-60 years. If we send kids they will return old and wrinkled, if even they return. And psychology tells us that they won't return - not a chance; they'd all kill each other before they are even half way there.

      But even if miraculously we spent 100-120 years and tons of money sending these expeditions, even then what do we do next? Do we expect to send colonists on a one-way trip that takes most of their lifetime? Forget that, unless a stasis field or some anabiosis is invented (but then many other problems are gone too.) Here we also need advances in science.

      And don't forget another effect: a spaceship launched later, but developed with better technology, can overtake a spaceship that flew earlier and slower. It would be pretty sad for a crew of an earlier ship to arrive and find a colony that is established by humans decades ago. Who wants to waste their entire life on an experiment? (If someone says "I do" he is not qualified to fly; he is insane.)

      If you really want to do something in space, I say planets of our star system are good for that. Our existing technology, if pushed here and pulled there, can do it. Of course you need nuclear propulsion of some sort, to get some decent impulse. The Moon can be a very attractive place if only we can build a city underground.

      This is not new in human history. The first stories about flight (Icarus etc.) are 2,000 years earlier than the actual powered flight, and we still don't have personal flight packs. We are now in position of Daedalus, trying to cobble together what we have to fly in the sky. But what we have is not good enough. We have a proof of the principle (and Daedalus could have his with a paraglider, if only he knew) but that proof is just as useful (not at all) as a paraglider is useful for breaking the speed of sound. We need new physics to make the next step.

    2. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A habitable world in another star system say 20 years travel away is hardly too far to "know what happened".

      ... send a manned expedition. ... the round trip will take another 50-60 years. If we send kids they will return old and wrinkled, if even they return.

      There's this curious thing that happens to time if you're accelerating or traveling at speeds close to the speed of light. What to those on Earth might seem to take a century or more, could seem to the travelers a few weeks. L. Ron Hubbard (of Scientology infamy/fame) explored this very concept in the book To The Stars.

    3. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by FailedTheTuringTest · · Score: 1

      Do we expect to send colonists on a one-way trip that takes most of their lifetime?

      Why not? In human history, people have set out on one-way trips countless times. European colonists coming to the Americas never expected to return. Colonists heading west across the Great Plains of the USA never expected to return. People are absolutely willing to uproot themselves and head out on daring expeditions with uncertain results and no expectation of return.

      And don't forget another effect: a spaceship launched later, but developed with better technology, can overtake a spaceship that flew earlier and slower. It would be pretty sad for a crew of an earlier ship to arrive and find a colony that is established by humans decades ago.

      But you have to build that first spaceship anyway, because if you don't, then you never develop the technology to build the second, faster one. The Wright brothers' first airplane only flew 852 feet, which is pretty lame compared with what we have now, but they had to build that one so that they could figure out how to build Flyer II and then III, and so on until we have Airbuses. But you cannot jump directly to building an Airbus without first building the Wright Flyer.

    4. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      The main problem, however, is not technical - the trip will take 40-45 years, and youngsters who paid for it will be senior citizens when the probe returns. Politically, in a democracy, the majority of population will not buy into this project. You need an enlightened dictator to do this.

      Dictators are never enlightened. And democracies are perfectly capable of making long term plans.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    5. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by danlip · · Score: 1

      Why would it have it come back to earth to upload data? Sure it's a challenge to send a signal over 20 light-years from a small probe, but far less of a challenge (and far faster) than building a probe that can make the journey both ways. The probe just needs a high-power transmitter and either a nuclear reactor with a long life-span or a massive solar array (once it gets to the target star it will have the light to power the solar array).

    6. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by alexo · · Score: 1

      A habitable world in another star system say 20 years travel away is hardly too far to "know what happened".

      I think your scale is a little off, there are no star systems within "20 years travel" using our current technology.

      Let's go over some fun facts.

      The closest known exoplanet, habitable or otherwise, is almost 10.5ly away (orbiting Epsilon Eridani). That's about 10^14 km.

      The fastest man-made object was the Helios 2 which achieved a record speed of 252,792 km/h at its perihelion.

      So, if we could manage to send a probe to that planet, moving at an average speed that equals the above, it would take close to 45,000 years to arrive. That's 45 thousand years.

      Just for comparison (source):
      The total span of human recorded history is about 5,000 years.
      The wheel was invented about 7,000 years ago.
      Cultivation of grains started about 10,000 years ago.
      Use of fibers to make baby-carriers, clothes, bags, baskets, and nets began about 26,000 years ago. Harpoons, needles, and saws were invented at roughly that time.
      Homo neanderthalensis became extinct about 29,000 years ago.
      The oldest known cave paintings date from about 31,000 years ago; the oldest known figurative art (Venus of Hohle Fels) from about 35,000 years ago.
      The Cro-Magnon colonisation of Europe happened about 40,000 years ago.

      So, during the time equal to what it would take our probe to arrive, the human race progressed from cave-dwelling mammoth hunters with stone blades as their most sophisticated tools to what you see today.

    7. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by tftp · · Score: 1

      European colonists coming to the Americas never expected to return. Colonists heading west across the Great Plains of the USA never expected to return.

      But they could if they wanted to. The ships from Europe weren't burned once they reach American shores. They were instead loaded with local products and sent back; anyone willing to catch a ride could do that (for a fee, presumably.) Similarly I may move from Toronto to Edmonton and never expect to return. The important fact is that neither me moving to Edmonton, nor colonists coming to America, are facing imminent death if just one thing out of a million goes wrong. But colonists leaving on a one-way voyage to Proxima Centauri will not be able to return regardless of anything; in principle. Even communications with Earth won't be effective (or interesting.) They swim or sink. Given probabilities of finding an Earth-like planet, the "sink" option is far more likely statistically.

      But you have to build that first spaceship anyway, because if you don't, then you never develop the technology to build the second, faster one.

      We never built a home PC out of vacuum tubes. The technology was there, but it was so ridiculous to even attempt that it was never done. We didn't even have transistor-based home PCs. It took a specialized integrated circuit - a microprocessor - to make this step. Right now our chemical rockets are very much like earlier tube-based computers - huge, expensive and inefficient. We just can't afford to use them more than we do already.

      The development of a transistor (or an IC) wasn't really tied to how many tube-based computers were in use. Scientists seldom care about such things. Scientists are driven by science, by the challenge of it. For them the very knowledge that $a works was sufficient to start working on $b, and then on $c. A technologist will be glad to base his new nuclear rocket engine on some existing designs, but even that is limited in scope - Orion-style ships can't reuse much from the STS, for example. This means that spending a trillion dollars on sending a huge chemical rocket to Mars will not help in development of a nuclear engine for a similar trip. It only means that the new engine project will be a trillion dollar in the red, and won't get anywhere.

    8. Re:There are 130 stars within 20 light years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, rubbish. We haven't ever set about building a high-speed inter-stellar ship because we have identified nowhere to go and have nothing to send. We can do a hell of a lot better than Helios 2 when we actually have a reason to. Nuclear pulse propulsion is one very straightforward approach. A tenth of the speed of light is perfectly attainable and would put us there in 105 years. You sound like someone explaining, 60 years ago, why we couldn't possibly go to the moon.

  44. Meet the aliens, a new comedy by Ben Stiller by digitaltraveller · · Score: 1

    We desperately want to meet the aliens. Unless they are illegal aliens, then they should GTFO.

  45. Light pollution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about simple light pollution .... (unless it has a thick atmosphere)

  46. Trailer Parks. by mevets · · Score: 1

    It seems that Aliens only want to address us by probing the rectums of trailer park inhabitants. It doesn't seem to be a stretch that Aliens are entranced by rectums and trailer parks.

    If we concentrated our search for trailer parks, we are likely to find the places Aliens at least like to go on holiday; and that would be a start!

    1. Re:Trailer Parks. by Spykk · · Score: 1

      What do you think goatse was? No one man's sacrifices to lure in extraterrestrial life will ever compare to that man's.

  47. I find it stranger by frog_strat · · Score: 1

    that there is life anywhere in the universe, than that there may be more life somewhere else in the universe.

  48. HIGH ENERGY interactions by md65536 · · Score: 1

    If I were an advanced alien civilization, I'd probably need a lot of energy, and I'd probably be doing "star engineering" on a much larger scale than what's suggested here.

    I'd modify a star to project its energy in focused beams, like the jets of a quasar.
    I'd make a Project Orion powered by supernovae.

    If I were a human looking for ETs, I'd look for signs of them in the highest energy interactions that we can see. Patterns? Events that don't appear completely random? etc

    I wouldn't look for human-like ideas of life or technology. If I was exploring the seabed I wouldn't think "well, life would have to develop large solar-collecting surfaces to survive in the very dim conditions"... I'd look to where the energy is, like sea vents, where lo and behold!, there is life that is unlike anything that exists on the surface.

    1. Re:HIGH ENERGY interactions by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Maybe. Or maybe that's like our paleolithic ancestors looking for piles of animal bones with the meat scraped off as a sign of civilization.

    2. Re:HIGH ENERGY interactions by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      What about looking for areas of high mass that should be giving off radiation but aren't, because it's being collected. Could dark matter be made up of Dyson Spheres?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  49. Simple: anything out of the ordinary by Arlet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just look for anything out of the ordinary, and once you find it, try to come up with an explanation. This way you'll not only find life (if it exist) but also other interesting phenomena.

    1. Re:Simple: anything out of the ordinary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cook the books to get the equations to match the experimental model? Slap equations together until they approximate reality?
      How does this differ from the time tested "make shit up" theory of doing things?

  50. Rings by DeathSquid · · Score: 1

    Spacefaring civilizations will mine lighter elements from gas giant atmospheres, and dismantle their moons for heavier elements. The debris from the moons will form rings.So look for large ring systems...

  51. two words by Bill+Dog · · Score: 1
    --
    Attention zealots and haters: 00100 00100
  52. Cyclic laser beacons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look for lighthouses err.. laserhouses using wavelengths least absorbed by any stellar gases AND least naturally occurring.

    Construct an array of detectors to see if such pulses have shape: are they mere sweeps from a rotating system or are they more complex projections. Angles or jaggies in mid-sweep or something like that.

    Jagged sweeps should be unnatural, no?

  53. Schumann Resonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about schumann resonances, the 'heartbeat' of the earth? A low frequency (8Hz) magnetic field variation is proof that an ionosphere exists...and that has to be a pre-requisite for life too.

  54. alien pr0n by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A thriving alien civilization means a whole lotta procreatin' going on. Just check the transmissions for depictions of alien body emissions.

    1. Re:alien pr0n by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Seth Shostak was asked in an interview what would he broadcast into space for the benefit of ET, and he said basically send the entire internet. When it was pointed out that there would be a lot of pr0n, he opined that it's not likely to be a problem. It'd be like National Geographic for them.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  55. Re:FTL or gravitational wraps. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Any thing less than FTL or g-wraps, we are prisoners of the jail called earth.

  56. Who would detect us? by jevring · · Score: 1

    If these are the criteria, we will never be detected by others: "where a star's lifetime is artificially extended to maintain the habitable zone of its planetary system; or debris created from asteroid mining."

    --
    Move sig!
  57. Not for me by xucrystal2011 · · Score: 1

    It is not for me and cannot detect me .hehe .scarpe Hogan :http://www.scarpahogan.com/

  58. Isotope analysis, look for fission products. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

    If the aliens are about as lucky as we are with nuclear power, isotope analysis of their atmosphere might indicate that they were experimenting with nuclear fission at some point in the last couple of million years.

    1. Re:Isotope analysis, look for fission products. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how do you do "isotope analysis" at a distance?

    2. Re:Isotope analysis, look for fission products. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Gamma spectroscopy should work when looking for fission products. You'll need a quite a bit of observation time, though.

      Optical spectrometry might work for certain isotopes, too. Again, you'll need long observation times.

  59. Just build a tricorder by rcasha2 · · Score: 1

    "I'm reading life-signs captain. Approximately 350,000 inhabitants, all humanoid."

  60. Seriously does any of those method work for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would any of those method cited work for us ? The proportion of CFL in our atmosphere is low enough that it would not even be a blimp in a spectra already noisy due to the interstellar environment it goes thru. I mean what would be the emission peak for CFL for our planet ? Rdiculously low and lost among the rest, and the same for other polluant. As for the rest "propulsion signature" ? Get real, if the physic limitation we know are set, then nobody is propulsing anything big beyond maybe their first moon and planet : they are using either smaller sonde or solar sail. *maybe* we could detect something like that at SHORT range, hello visitor, but at a range of multi dozen light year ? Ha, we would hardly be able to detect it as far as the last of our planetoids goes (or even earlier).

    That brain storming sound more like somebody had a marathon of star trek which went too long in the night.

  61. solar power usage by WizardMarnok · · Score: 1

    A stellar civilization may need to harness more of the power of its sun. This could involve massive solar power arrays orbiting the star close enough to cast a planet-sized shadow without the gravitational effect of a planet. We ought to be able to spot anything like that, and consider it a possible sign of smarter-than-us life.

  62. More and greater psychonauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want to speak to aliens, maybe the best and most practical method is a heroic dosage of some powerful hallucinogenics. DMT or Salvia Divinorum are probably the best bets.
    I know a few people that have encountered extra-terrestrials on psychonautical voyages. Although their research is mostly indescribable, it seems they've talked to a lot more aliens than SETI. If you want to be more scientific about it, compare the accounts of diverse and isolated trippers and look for common, anomalous themes of vision. When science fails, ask a shaman.

  63. we are the first (with high probability) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that now one has discovered us yet makes it very probable that we are the most advanced civilization in the part of universe that is reachable for our means of communication. If someone in this distance were more advanced then they would discover us. What's more as progress is exponential in nature then the probabilities very of being discovered or being the leading civilization are saturating very rapidly along time axis. If any civilization outpaces us more than few centuries then there is now way not to notice them. The chances that other civilization are at the same level of progress is very low, therefore if we were not discovered yet it follows that we should be the first.

  64. Pareto Principle by MrKaos · · Score: 2

    It actually is a job for an AI - we need better robots...We need new physics to make the next step.

    What an interesting post, I've thought the same things, especially about colonising our own solar system. Once we get there then we can try to figure out the next step of colonising the galaxy.

    I was also considering a situation that *if* there were other civilisations that launched robots to explore the galaxy based on their own versions of AI could they combine over time. Could there ever be a situation where 80 percent of the Galaxies intelligent life is "artificial" and 20% has evolved naturally. Imagine if that is what our AI enhanced explorers discovered.

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  65. Nuke em from orbit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will get their attention.

  66. Take a legal approach by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

    Look for poor immigration laws?

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  67. Novel idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of detecting alien civilizations, why don't we get off our fat asses and go look?

  68. Re:Good point, but: Have you seen "The FINAL EXAM" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There you have it, space nutters: APK is fascinated by the same stuff you are.

    If that's not enough to slap some sense into you, nothing is.

  69. Interferometer telescope by garlicbready · · Score: 1

    1. Build a Big Ass Interferometer Optical telescope
    preferably in space to avoid any problems with the atmosphere
    basically a load of smaller telescopes all joined together / looking at the same target to gain higher resolution

    2. Point it at the dark side of a planet

    3. Look for any Street Lighting

  70. How it went down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sir - we still haven't found any aliens."
    "Dammit, McFey, what are you a dumbshit sack of nails? If y'all don't clever up soon I'm gonna have your ass for breakfast - now get outta my sight!" ::Hurls chair across room::

    Three weeks later...

  71. The key to evolution: by olahaye74 · · Score: 1

    They didn't knew it was impossible, so they did it. - Mark Twain

  72. We keep doing it the wrong way! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have a hard time trying to understand and decipher languages spoken by other cultures even here on our own planet. Do we really think its possible to recognize an alien signal?

    http://filya.wordpress.com/2009/02/21/search-for-intelligent-life/ sums it up pretty nicely.

  73. They should take a math class instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and brainstorm that.

    Those that are even somewhat good at math understand that searching for aliens is stupid.

  74. dude ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://youtube.com/jessebvala

  75. We've Found One! It's Their Garbage, Not A Dyson.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sphere!

    "Follow the trash" is a surefire formula for finding any advanced civilization. And a civilization advanced enough to push their trash into the infinitude of space without caring is just the sort we're likely to [NOT] get along with. Too much like us.

  76. Hmmm by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Not sure I'm getting the point. Neutrino beams, as you say, are a bitch to generate, and just as much a bitch to detect/demodulate (because of the non-interacting-with-matter thing). So why would anyone use them to communicate, when EM based comms are easy?

  77. Look for change. by StikyPad · · Score: 2

    Change seems to be the only constant of life. Look for a change in atmospheric composition, in RF "noise", in anything we can measure really. The galactic equivalent of a motion detector. Not all change represents life, but it does represent something worth investigating. And, of course, the change might not be occurring on a scale we can measure in a short timeframe (where short would be less than our average lifetime), but it would almost certainly be faster than traveling anywhere with existing technology.

    Anything else -- the absence or existence of certain elements -- is even more speculative than postulating a cause for change. The only exception might be something we can be reasonably certain hasn't occurred naturally, such as a signal carrying intelligence (modulation), which is the whole drive behind SETI. The problem with only looking for modulated EMR, is that it limits the domain to strictly intelligent life, which, while extremely interesting, could well be too high a threshold.

    The other problem is that given the vast distances of space, anything we discover will be ancient history at best, and quite possibly long gone. The only way we're likely to actually communicate with another intelligent species is if they happen to be remarkably close by, or if one of us masters the manipulation of space-time.

  78. Detect life first? by TXP · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't we be trying to detect life first? I've always wondered why we haven't detected absorption spectra for chlorophyll or a similar material (I read recently about the possibility of grey/black leafed plants) in space around stars. If plants are black then they won't leave much reflected light to detect.

  79. Stop this right now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    you nerds need to stop this crap right now! Me and my family don't need the freakin Klingons bustin' down our door and eatin' our innards. Now go back into the basement and play with your legos and unix scripts.

  80. tomhudson's "last resort" ac stalkin' & trolli by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme" - by tomhudson (43916) on Sunday May 09 2010, @08:29PM (#32150544) Homepage Journal

    QUOTED VERBATIM FROM 1 YEAR AGO HERE on slashdot -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1646272&cid=32150544

    Which you have kept up since... Proof? Ok - This week?? Well - tomhudson tells others to do the SAME, even more:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2086424&cid=35841122

    and, once more, yet again, here this week:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl ?sid=2086920&cid=35840680

    ---

    You need to see a shink tomhudson... just because you avoid 3 simple questions I asked you that put your in your place here, which you avoid to NO end:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2100524&cid=35924608

    and you cannot disprove points I made on HOSTS files though you "hate them" as you say, & I used that to make you out a fool here:

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2102482&cid=35932382

    Doesn't mean you have to "ac stalk & troll me" like some sick freak or petulant child would.

    APK

    P.S.=> Take your meds, grow up, or whatever it is you need to do (answering & disproving my points on HOSTS files would be nice too, lol, but you CAN'T DO THAT, now can you? Nope... lol!)

    ... apk

  81. How about read NSA released docs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and from the NSA's own site

    http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf

  82. Detecting Civilizations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Listen for reruns...

  83. Air, not water/ground pollution by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    However you need it to be air pollution for it to be visible. Agricultural and mining pollution tends to be solid or liquid and so will not be so readily detected.

    1. Re:Air, not water/ground pollution by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      However you need it to be air pollution for it to be visible. Agricultural and mining pollution tends to be solid or liquid and so will not be so readily detected.

      Roger you really do deserve an OBE

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  84. People have been brainstorming for decades ... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    ... possibly for centuries. I know that I was thinking about things like this in the early 1980s as I started to get into SF. When I went to university, these would have been problems we attacked while walking up mountains or procrastinating to avoid doing our work.

    We knew we weren't even the first generation.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  85. Link to source paper by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    The article linked in the summary appears to have been prompted by a paper on Arxiv, discussing the possible changes that asteroid mining would produce in a star's dust envelope.

    All very nice good stuff - I see one of the authors is at Edinburgh Observatory, so I'll keep my ears peeled in case he ever does any public lectures.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  86. Detect changes in gravitational field by lemonjelo · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure it's practical to take into account all the expected sources, but a far advanced civilization may be able to communicate by converting energy to mass and back to create a gravitational signal that presumably travels faster than light.

    --

    pimtamf