Slashdot Mirror


Astronomers Search For Dyson Spheres of Alien Civilizations

Hugh Pickens writes "An article by Ross Andersen makes note of Freeman Dyson's prediction in 1960 that every civilization in the Universe eventually runs out of energy on its home planet, a major hurdle in a civilization's evolution. Dyson argued that all those who leap over it do so in precisely the same way: they build a massive collector of starlight, a shell of solar panels to surround their home star. Last month astronomers began a two-year search for Dyson Spheres, a search that will span the Milky Way, along with millions of other galaxies. The search is funded by a sizable grant from the Templeton Foundation, a philanthropic organization that funds research on the 'big questions' that face humanity, questions relating to 'human purpose and ultimate reality.' Compared with SETI, a search for Dyson Spheres assumes that the larger the civilization, the more energy it uses and the more heat it re-radiates. If Dyson Spheres exist, they promise to give off a very particular kind of heat signature, a signature that we should be able to see through our infrared telescopes. 'A Dyson Sphere would appear very bright in the mid-infrared,' says project leader Jason Wright. 'Just like your body, which is invisible in the dark, but shines brightly in mid-infrared goggles.' A civilization that built a Dyson Sphere would have to go to great lengths to avoid detection, building massive radiators that give off heat so cool it would be undetectable, a solution that would involve building a sphere that was a hundred times larger than necessary. 'If a civilization wants to hide, it's certainly possible to hide,' says Wright, 'but it requires massive amounts of deliberate engineering across an entire civilization.'"

24 of 686 comments (clear)

  1. Flawed assumptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dyson assumed that all alien civilizations are stupid enough to believe in infinite growth, much like humanity.

    I don't believe this. I think the most advanced aliens have probably realized that there isn't much point of growth after a certain threshold.

    1. Re:Flawed assumptions. by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also assumes that there aren't any energy advancements that are so far out of our understanding right now that they wouldn't seem like magic if we possessed them. Our assumptions are limited by our current understanding. In the next thousand years we could see all kinds of advancements that render building a Dyson sphere completely unnecessary.

    2. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It also assumes that there aren't any energy advancements that are so far out of our understanding right now that they wouldn't seem like magic

      Which is a reasonable assumption. Advanced civilizations will certainly have more advanced technology, but basic laws of reality will still apply. There is no reason to believe that the second law of thermodynamics can be violated, and overwhelming evidence that it cannot.

    3. Re:Flawed assumptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I recognize that humanity has overpopulated the earth

      What do you base that on? Humanity may have overpopulated Calcutta, or Sao Paulo.
      We haven't overpopulated Wyoming.

    4. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dyson assumed that all alien civilizations are stupid enough to believe in infinite growth,

      No, he didn't assume that all civilizations would take this path, just some of them. The Universe should contain billions of civilizations. If even a tiny fraction of them build Dyson Spheres, then this search may find something.

      Alien civilizations are likely products of the same kind of Darwinian process that produced humans, so the desire to expand and grow will be innate, because species which lack that desire are replaced by those that possess it.

    5. Re:Flawed assumptions. by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as we can tell, no macro-level system can violate thermodynamics, so the postulate should hold true. There should be IR energy given off anywhere energy is consumed as IR is the end result of an system that is not 100% efficient.

    6. Re:Flawed assumptions. by rhsanborn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I've read my recent physics correctly, 95% of the energy in our universe is in a form we don't know much about (dark matter/energy). If a sufficiently advanced civilization could harness that, they are likely going to do something to target that, instead of star light.

    7. Re:Flawed assumptions. by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't believe this. I think the most advanced aliens have probably realized that there isn't much point of growth after a certain threshold.

      It's funny how these armchair physicists who got their education from bad science fiction are so adamant that we can't possibly know what magical technology we might invent that will get us around the laws of thermodynamics, so capturing starlight is crude and stupid and this project is obviously a waste of time.

      But boy do they sure know the motivations of future humanity, the path of technological and societal growth, and the psychology of hypothetical aliens, and that knowledge also tells them that this project is a waste of time.

    8. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does science explain psychics? Auras, the afterlife, the power of prayer?

      Science also fails to explain unicorns. And don't get me started on Santa Claus. How does he deliver toys to over a billion homes in one night? Science offers no plausible explanation for that.

    9. Re:Flawed assumptions. by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just ignore him, he's one of those frustrating, myopic people that thinks we are limited to the resources of the ball of mud on which we presently live.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    10. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ChronoFish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Dyson assumed that all alien civilizations are stupid enough to believe in infinite growth....

      I don't know anything about Dyson, but based on our "civilization" we don't "believe" in infinite growth... we just grow to point where our growth is no longer sustainable. There is no belief or consciousness involved. Sure you you may have individuals warning about the "tipping point" of the world the civilization lives in... but until the tipping point is reached there is little the civilization can do to stop its growth. That's life in general. Every population grows until it can't. When it's over populated it shrinks. When no resources can be consumed, it dies. Populations growth will always be towards equilibrium with what-ever its surrounding can support.

      If a population is advanced enough to build a a dyson sphere, and a dyson sphere is the only way to survive, then a dyson sphere will be built or the population will decrease towards 0 until the population stabilizes (which very well may be at "0").

      But regardless there is no belief here. There is no concerted attempt to grow infinitely. Just ask a deer or fruit-fly. They have no clue what you're asking...but their population will certainly increase when it can and decrease when it has to.

      -CF

    11. Re:Flawed assumptions. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      we have *always* relied on sunlight

      Past performance is not an indicator of future performance. Humans always used horses... until they invented a car. Humans were using only land transport.. until they invented an airplane. Humans were always planet-bound, until they flew into space.

      In the midst of ALL of that (horses, cars, planes, spaceships) they have all been powered (as well as the humans in them) indirectly (by about 2 or 3 steps of conversion) by the sun... Sure things change, but given how different humanity of 2012 looks compared to that of only 1000 years ago, and still it's entirely thanks to the sun, is a pretty clear suggestion that humanity will rely on the sun from now until the end of our existence. There's just too much energy shooting out of it in every direction for it to be ignored, barring something that literally violates the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

    12. Re:Flawed assumptions. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The "power of prayer" goes not only against science, it even goes against true faith. If god is all-knowing and good, then he must know what is best for the people even without the people praying for it. If he needs to be told what to do, he's not all-knowing. If he does the good only if someone prays for it, he's not good. And if he does something which is not good because someone prays for it, he's even less good. Therefore we find that an all-knowing and good god cannot be influenced by prayers, and therefore the believe that prayers have objective effects (other than the normal psychological effects) shows a lack of faith.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    13. Re:Flawed assumptions. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i can think of at least 1 scenario where 1+1=10

      Yes, but that's still 2.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  2. Let me predict.... by slashping · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll find nothing.

    1. Re:Let me predict.... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'll find nothing.

      Which would be an interesting result.

      Experiments don't have to be "successful" to have an impact. Michelson and Morley failed to detect ether, yet their failed experiment revolutionized physics.

      If the search finds nothing, does that mean the Rare Earth Hypothesis is correct? Or maybe advanced civilizations find a way to hide their energy consumption, or maybe they don't grow or don't need the levels of energy that we think they do. A null result from this search leads to many interesting questions.

  3. Re:what about nuclear fusion? by Shrike82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The energy output of a star is going to be many orders of magnitude higher than what you'd get from fusion technology. The sun is a giant fusion plant itself! A sufficiently advanced technological civilisation may very well find itself bound only by the amount of energy it could produce or harness, and getting every last scrap of energy from a star is a massive boost to an energy based economy.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
  4. Re:So why can't we do it? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are 100% correct, but it's not just politicians who are small minded. Here's an example. I work in IT as a Linux System Administrator. One of my colleagues is not only extremely smart and one of the most knowledgeable IT guys I've ever worked with (he is like a living set of man pages), he is into sci fi. He feels very strongly that we have more pressing needs at home in the USA than to spend almost any money on NASA. I mean, he is the exact kind of guy who I would expect to be in favor of building a moon base. When guys like him won't even back NASA, there's really no hope for the USA to ever do anything useful in space in our lifetime unless it becomes a national security concern. But in direct response to your suggestion, I want to see a moon base first and a manned expedition to Mars before we try something massive like this. It's a "walk before you run" kind of thing.

  5. Re:Population growth by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Imagine what the Republicans and Tea Party would do and say if somebody proposed government-enforced limits in the USA.

    Why pick on the Republicans here? I'm relatively liberal, and I know plenty of other liberals who would be just as outraged.

  6. obviously they don't unstand TIMECUBE by Thud457 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Against Stupidity, even the gods themselves labor in vain.


    lets see how many mods perceive the relevance to the reference

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  7. Re:what about nuclear fusion? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For fuck's sake, people, read a god damn book. Star Trek is make-believe bullshit.

    If you're completely ignorant about a subject, is it too much to ask that you remedy the situation before farting an opinion? There are four links in the post for your education!

    I mean, sure, the Templeton Foundation are a bunch of religious loons, but do you actually think you know better than Freeman Dyson and the actual physicists, astronomers, and engineers who consider the idea plausible? If so, you'd better tell them why it can't work, before they waste all that money! Your paper on the subject will make you famous!

  8. Re:series of tubes by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to release heat. The laws of thermodynamics demand it ; even if you have a fractally complex energy usage system, it has to move outwards, or it will all grind to a halt. So you'd see a large sphere at a temperature somewhere above cosmic background - how far above would depend on the efficiency of their engineering.

  9. Re:series of tubes by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course, this presumes that advanced civilizations will simply re-radiate the left-over thermal energy, it's entirely possible that they would have close to 100% efficient systems or have a economically sensible way of storing thermal energy to re-use at a later date.

    It also presumes that advanced civilizations would waste their time and resources building such a contraption, when, given the technology necessary to do so, it would be far easier to find another planet.

    The level of sophistication necessary to deploy such a thing would require a level of technology where Fusion is childs play. There would be no energy shortage.

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
  10. Re:The Templeton Foundation by gandhi_2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Nazis got us into space. The military industrial complex got us the internet. War gave us most of our trama medicine.

    But you take issue with this one, huh?