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.'"
Don't they mean Matrioshka brain?
If it is natural to die, then to hell with nature. --FM 2030
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.
i'm sure an advanced civilization will master Star Trek type fusion tech before doing something ridiculous like building a starlight collector.
the earth compared to the sun is like a grain of sand to a beachball. where would you get enough matter to build something around a star if the same or similar size ratio will exist in other star systems?
They'll find nothing.
Wouldn't a civilization advanced enough to pull off an engineering feat like a Dyson Sphere also have advanced their engineering sufficiently to find more efficient power sources?
I was watching that Riddick movie with the Necromongers the other day and I realized that the concept was actually very realistic. What kind of society would get into space first? The ones that put a high priority on space exploration. And what kind of civilization would do that just for the heck of it before any others? The ones that have some irrational reason to do it driven by some kind of religious fervor. While the "Star Trek like" science-driven societies pace themselves in a sensible manner, the religious nutjobs would throw every single resource their entire civilization could at getting into space to please their space deity or whatever. If there's an advanced space-faring race out there you probably want to steer clear of them.
See also: The Irkens from Invader Zim
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Actually, depending on the level of respect for freedom, population control may not be expected.
The desire of the individual and of the civilization are often in conflict, and procreation tends to be one of the areas of conflict.
Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
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.
Dyson doesn't have spheres, Dyson has balls !
But nothing sucks like an Elecrolux.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
Right, because there's no way a civilization advanced enough to build 282743338860000000 square kilometers of solar panels is going to be able to build solar panels capable of absorbing and using mid-infrared light (heat). If the supposition is that they inevitably build Dyson spheres to capture all of the available energy coming off their star, why would they let a whole bunch of it escape as heat?
Seems like a giant waste of time and money, but I suppose they will be generating useful data while they look. Still, their chances of finding one are likely ludicrously close to zero even if one does exist. I also find the whole premise to be rather poorly thought out, I have to admit; even if a civilization is capable of building a Dyson sphere, I'm not sure it makes any sense to actually do it.
Eventually, the energy is converted to heat, which can leak out into space. Our planet is not a closed system. The good thing is that there is also energy coming in into our system (solar energy, for example).
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
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.
Obligatory, of of course
Further, in the traditionally-envisioned model of the Dyson Sphere (hollow sphere around a star; not Dyson's actual theory), the livable surface area of the sphere would come out to something on the order of millions of Earth-sized planets. Population control at that scale, for a society with that kind of capability, is essentially a non-issue for any reasonable length of time.
I'm not saying that this invalidates the research, but it does cast some doubt on it and the reasons it is being done.
The cold black vacuum is not going to take a lot of heat. There are few particles for that heat to go to.
While space itself is cold, it makes a very good insulator. So you might want to rethink that sterling engine.
It probably would be profitable, in small sections. (The original 'Dyson Fleet' version.) If you have the tech to put up orbital solar at reasonable cost, it's probably profitable to put up more and more orbital solar plants as your race grows.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
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
Dyson spheres are an interesting thought experiment but fairly stupid when you think about the logistics (as mentioned in previous comments, so I won't get into it). At least on our scale. Just as elctrons orbit the nucleus, moons orbit planets, planets order stars, stars orbit the galaxy center, galaxies orbit the giant turtle and form supergalxy clusters... There's no reason to say intelligent life composed of cells composed of molecules and atoms couldn't also exist at a larger scale. (Ask the symbiotic bacteria in your gut sometime). And intelligent life at a larger scale certainly could biuld a dyson sphere. Hell, maybe we are part of the dyson sphere.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Ok so somehow you get enough materials and energy to shape it into a sphere. That's an impossible task, but then it's somehow even more impossible that they use radiators to disperse the heat? I mean when you're talking about impossibility, it doesn't matter if it's squared or cubed. Then once you have this shell of solar collectors, how do you get the energy inside of it? You basically have a Faraday cage.
Also, why the fuck? Any significantly advanced civilization would use gravitational engines. That is either under direct or natural control, they would set up a oscillation system between multiple orbiting bodies where they can harvest energy without needing fusion. Instead of lighting up the solar system, they'd go invisible, detectible only via gravity waves which to date, are impossible to detect. At a minimum, significantly harder to detect.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
First off a dyson sphere does not take into account the MASSIVE amount of praticle energy that is coming off the star. the Stellar wind on that scale would be immense. Secondly, Orbits are not magical. a dyson sphere is unstable and will either wobble and start to collapse into the star, or rip apart due to the uneven gravity well. Just the technology to even be able to have the ability to think of building a Ringworld, something far, far, FAR easier than a Dyson sphere is so mind bogglingly compex that it collapses in upon it's self.
Sorry but it's a waste of time we might as well look for civilizations that are harvesting black holes to power their space ships.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Quick! Let's build a giant IR emitter w/ some filters to produce the same spectral curve as a Dyson sphere. All those not-quite-advanced societies out there will detect it and run screaming from our perceived galactic-overlordishness.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
I don't understand this nonsense of astronomers searching the galaxy for Dyson Spheres. I had no trouble finding and buying one off Amazon. The design is revolutionary, and it's very powerful. It gets pet hairs out of my carpet with ease. Highly recommended!
Still didn't keep them from featuring one (see TNG:Relics w/ the James Doohan appearance):
http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/09/star-trek-the-next-generation-qrelicsq
I still don't find the idea of a sphere workable:
- you need to have artificial gravity to make it work or everything not bolted down falls into the sun
- where do you get the material from? Dismantle several (dozen, hundred, thousand, million?) star systems?
- what material could it be constructed of?
Even a ringworld is pretty far-fetched (though it could be spun).
The most believable space habitat I've seen in fiction thus far is Varley's Gaea (from his Titan/Wizard/Demon trilogy).
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
you win the false choice fallacy of the day award.
No one said profit is evil. What was said that some things worth doing might not be profitable.
Most engineers already think a total dyson sphere is absurd, at least for a first or even 10th effort. The task of fulling enclosing a star?
Instead most likely what you would see would be a network of solar arrays, mssive though they be, but also most likely out of the orbital plane ("polar" caps being the most logical and simplest logitically), so that the majority of the star's light still radiates normally.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Small black holes are basically 100% efficient at turning mass into energy via Hawking Radiation, which is nearly two orders of magnitude more efficient than Stars powered by fusion.
There are some serious suggestions as to how to go about making them (ultra powerful converging gamma ray lasers, as photons aren't subject to Pauli Exclusion Principle). While it probably requires a moon-sized machine to do it, it is probably feasible for a civilisation capable of building a Dyson sphere, and once you have that technology you don't need stars or the gravitational hassles that they create anymore.
If the civilization has achieved 100% energy efficiency, there would be no radiated heat, as that is simply wasteful.
Fundamental laws of physics apply, even if you're a technologically advanced civilization.
Wouldn't planet-based solar be far more affordable and efficient, and produce more than enough energy for a planet with population controlled at a reasonable level, which should be expected from any advanced civilization? Seems like it would be unlikely for an advanced civilization to build one of these given the other options (including fusion power)...
Define "reasonable level." You'll find it depends entirely on your resources. If you build a Dyson sphere, your available power resources are vastly greater (physical material such as food and water can, theoretically, by recycled with 100% efficiency given sufficient power). And it greatly benefits a society to have a larger population: faster evolution, more smart people to make advances, more culture and art are produced, and a vastly greater chance to survive any catastrophe.
In other words, you are thinking of the limitations a more advanced society would face from the perspective of our society. They are not the same, and doing so is a grave mistake. Our current population would have been completely and totally unsustainable for more than a few days 100 years ago (whether it is sustainable in the long term is irrelevant, my point is literally 1/2+ of the population would die in a week if we didn't have modern food production), it is foolish to think a population 100x our current couldn't be sustainable in 1000 years. In fact, we already know how we could do exactly that, in theory (hydroponics and similar). But you'd need a lot of energy to do that: hence, build a Dyson Sphere. Of course, that in itself assumes we don't discover a better way of getting energy in the next 1000 years, which is itself something of a major assumption.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
That is why.
Space is such a good insulator, that dissipating the heat from the crew and sunlight requires it.
Don't worry; we're working on that.
When someone says, "Any fool can see
Once you have self-replicating, "intelligent" machines to do the job?
Assuming you could keep them interested in building your sphere, of course!
You just create your first self-replicating solar-powered Dyson-sphere builder, and then sit back and watch it and its scions build for the next hundred million years or whatever. Or maybe nowhere near that long, assuming exponential growth (to some limit) of the builder-bots.
Another example of the power of the Singularity?
--PM
What if at a certain point in evolution and understanding the world around you and the universe you discover that instead of manipulating matter, which consumes vast amounts of energy, that it's possible to manipulate energy itself which (theoretically) would require no more energy than what is already present around us. Instead of building vast energy gathering complexes you can for all intents and purposes manipulate what's already in abundance for civilizations advantage. All of a sudden faster than light travel isn't an impossibility but likely and taken for granted in as much as we take hoping on an airplane.
Been written about. Course, Zahn didn't come up with any conclusions why the Spinneret aliens were hiding, just that they were.
Makes me wonder if some civilisations are hiding, and what they're hiding from.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
The Templeton Foundation rewards answers that involve religion. I don't trust who funds this search, I don't trust the results.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
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.
And he's right. We shouldn't go to Mars because we want to brag about putting men on Mars. We should go to Mars because investing in high tech domestic industry is an excellent solution to our economic problems. It's a good reason to invest in education, it's a good reason to pay highly educated people good salaries. A manned mission to Mars is exactly the kind of stimulus program this country needs.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I am not like your colleague, but it may be that there is a time and a place for those sorts of expenditures. I don't think you would argue that you shouldn't be building telescopes when your family is starving, so the question becomes at what point do we have to take care of our own to the exclusion of all else. I don't think that this is the time for it, but you could argue that the US may well have been in a better place to put a man on the moon, economically, in 1969 than we are now.
So, his position can be a consistent one. He wants a moon base. Maybe he really, really wants a moon base, but he doesn't want that moon base if someone had to starve for him to get that moon base.
I can't argue with his viewpoint, I only might argue with his perception of how bad the problem is, and just how much we gain from *not* building that moon base. We can't shut down research every time we see a homeless person. At no point in history has there ever been a time where no one was poor. There's a lot of reasons for people being homeless, unemployed or hungry, those reasons often not being directly related to how much money you throw at them.
Sometimes, the reason they are homeless or unemployed is because we've made things so efficient that we need new things for humans to work at until we have mastered those things as well. Research is one of the only ways to truly create new jobs that move an economy forward. Just spending money on more government bureaucratic jobs or welfare programs can't do that because it is just maintenance overhead, not actual economic growth. In the end, you need research and moon bases to keep the level of poverty down and even to simply keep people optimistic and willing to work for a better future.
A ringworld is a lot easier to build than a Dyson Sphere, you could do it with the material from one solar system. And you can spin it for gravity.
For a dydson sphere you need to invent some sort of artificial gravity (even a sphere made of a thin layer of neutronium isnt going to work
Books to read:
Orbitsville , Orbitsville Deoarture by Bob Shaw
Ringworkd , Ringworld Engineers, Ringworld Throne by Larry Niven
Anyway a Dyson Sphere is an example of a type 2 civilization (one that utilizes the entire resources of its star
A type 1 civilization utilizes the entire resources of its planet and we have only scratched the surface of this one - just think how many zigawatt millenia of energy lies in the molten rock just a hundred km below your feet and all the way to the core
We build taller and taller skyscrapers. Why? There are more efficient structures, and it's not like they are there to harvest resources unavailable at ground level. Besides, some peasant can build a mountainside hut that is at a higher altitude than the highest skyscraper. So, maybe it's not about the energy. Maybe it's a statement of prowess, or art.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
We cannot (given current understanding and resource consumption patters) maintain the current population of the planet indefinitely.
You build a box and try to fit God inside it. When he doesn't fit, you conclude he doesn't exist. The irony is that God created the one who created the box in which God does not fit. I find that you are not even aware of your own presuppositions, therefore you cannot reach a reasonable conclusion. You have been so heavily influenced by atheists and scientism (which is practically worshipped as a religion unto itself) that you have confined your own thinking to a box which you are unwilling to exit, and perhaps even unaware of.
1. You presuppose that if God acts on a prayer, it indicates that he was previously unaware of something.
2. You presuppose that if God is all-knowing and good that he must necessarily enforce what is best for people.
3. You presuppose that, as a finite, relatively insignificant human being, you could possibly know whether and when God intercedes in our world and to what ends.
4. You presuppose that you could even know what is "good" or "best" from the perspective of an all-knowing, all-powerful, universe-creating, life-breathing entity beyond our comprehension.
Your conclusion ("Therefore we find that an all-knowing and good god cannot be influenced by prayers...") is a non sequitur. It's not even a logical conclusion from your assertions. And your assertions are unsubstantiated, anyway.
The very nature of an omnipotent, omniscient entity who exists outside of our plane of existence means that we cannot completely comprehend him; we may only do so to the extent he chooses to reveal himself to us. What you have done is set forth arbitrary specifications for God, and if it seems to you that he does not meet your criteria, you conclude that he must not exist. This is nothing short of absurd. If God exists outside of or above our universe, if he created you and the universe and the very nature of our existence, how could you possibly define the means by which he may exist?
N.B. I am not even arguing that God does exist--I'm simply arguing that your logic is fundamentally flawed because of your presuppositions. Either God is an all-powerful, all-knowing entity--and therefore beyond our comprehension--or he is finite, like us, but with advanced technology--and therefore, presumably, ultimately understandable--or he does not exist at all. If you are arguing based on the presupposition that he is all-powerful and all-knowing, then you must argue that he is far beyond any of your reasoning or standards, and therefore you cannot logically define criteria for proving his existence.
The argument boils down to whether anything can exist beyond our understanding or comprehension: if we can comprehend God, then nothing is ultimately beyond our understanding, and--eventually, perhaps far beyond our lifetimes--we can "find" him, understand him, and even possess similar powers (note that this implies being able to create an entire universe of our own, from nothing). In this case, it's simply a matter of time until he is "discovered"--until then, he either does not exist or we have yet to find him (a conclusion which does not answer the questions, "How?", "Why?", and "From what?"). But on the other hand, if things may exist beyond our understanding, then we can never expect to meet God on our terms, and trying to do so is naive and futile.
I like the fishbowl analogy. (It's not perfect, of course.) The fish's entire universe is inside his fishbowl. He knows nothing outside of it (perhaps it would be useful to declare the fishbowl to be opaque, or at least barely translucent). Now and then something from outside his universe seems to interact with his world--perhaps a hand reaches in, but he cannot discern the source of the hand. The fish cannot comprehend existence outside of his bowl, or outside of water, the very fabric of his existence. Therefore, to him, nothing must exist outside of his world, and nothing must exist outside of water--which, to him, isn't even water, just reality as he knows it. But to the human, clearly the fish is limited
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."