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.'"

52 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 Guido+von+Guido+II · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      But where is that threshold? Is it before or after they build a Dyson sphere?

    3. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There's the /civilization's/ recognition of the limit, vs. the individual's desire to procreate, in the battle of need vs. freedom/rights.
      I recognize that humanity has overpopulated the earth, that does not diminish my desire to have a child at some point.

      Also, as for remaining hidden, a race may decide instead of building a Dyson sphere which radiates over it's whole surface, to instead radiate over a smaller portion of the surface, and at a narrower angle. While you could be detected from the right angle, if you point it the right way, the closest thing that could bother you, probably wouldn't be close enough to care about.

      Then again, the amount of mass needed for a Dyson sphere would be insane, if you have that level of tech, to acquire that mass, you probably have other solutions to the problem (direct matter->energy conversion perhaps?)

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:Flawed assumptions. by zifn4b · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Basic laws of reality? Isn't science about increasing our understanding of reality? Many theories and ideas have come and gone and been replaced by more refined ones. We would be extremely naive to think our current understanding is even remotely close to all there is to know and completely correct. There is much to learn my friend.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    8. Re:Flawed assumptions. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, the second law is more of a statistical observational law than one deduced from higher principles. Its really good at predicting things and seems really reliable and is tied into all kinds of other areas of physics. I would be shocked to near death if we found a repetable, observable violation.

      But the science fiction lover in me would prefer to think of it a just a setting in the universe that could be switched off when convineint. Its also linked to time, so if we can just step out of the stream of time then we're good and possibly gods.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    9. Re:Flawed assumptions. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I can't recall who said it but someone (more famous than myself) put the idea out there that if you had the resources to build a Dyson sphere you wouldn't need to build one. Makes sense to me but I'm not an engineer.

    10. 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.

    11. Re:Flawed assumptions. by deoxyribonucleose · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Easily.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. Re:Flawed assumptions. by rufty_tufty · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who don't get the reference it's a beat poem called Storm by Tim Minchin
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
      He's very much being derisive of that sort of viewpoint.
      Sorry to spoil the joke.

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    15. 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.

    16. Re:Flawed assumptions. by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      Relative velocity time dilation has been understood for years. Please leave your geek card at the door on the way out.

    17. Re:Flawed assumptions. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Informative

      How does science explain psychics?

      It doesn't have to. Science doesn't have to deal with fairy tales.
       

      Auras

      If you mean Auroras, we've got you covered. If you mean the fuzzy, ill defined fields that come up when you overexpose film or electronic sensors, well, we've got that covered as well.
       

      the afterlife

      What afterlife? Before it needs explaining, it needs existing.
       

      the power of prayer?

      What "power of prayer"? The non existent causal relationship between other people praying for someone and having an outcomes change? That doesn't happen. The ability of the plastic human mind to influence the rest of the body (to which it's intimately connected)? May I introduce you to the concept of neurobiology in all it's complexity and splendor?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Flawed assumptions. by EverlastingPhelps · · Score: 4, Informative

      These are known as Dyson Swarms and Dyson Bubbles, and would have similar characteristics.

    19. Re:Flawed assumptions. by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I recognize that humanity has overpopulated the earth, that does not diminish my desire to have a child at some point.

      It may not diminish your desire, but hopefully it alters your actions. At the very least I would hope you would choose have 1 or 2 and not 3 or more. If all couples had just 1 child the population would drop by 50% each generation (obviously with a time delay since people live much longer than one generation). 2 is steady state.

      You'd be surprised how many people simply don't ever procreate. Your point is still valid, but if everyone who wanted/could have kids did have just 2 that lived to maturity (another factor) the population would still decline. Three kids (during your child bearing years) per willing/able couple is more practical for holding a steady population. A guilt trip for having 3 kids is completely unwarranted.

    20. 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.
    21. 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

    22. Re:Flawed assumptions. by tftp · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      A Dyson sphere is not a scientific fact, it's only a possibility, and not trivial one at that. The approach has many problems.

      First, the Dyson Sphere, even if it is ideally constructed, will only supply energy to your sites near the star. However it is logical to expect that an advanced civilization will need spaceships for all kinds of purposes, from research to migration. This cannot be done without movable sources of energy (thermonuclear at the least.) Once you have them, the effort of building the Dyson sphere appears to be too high.

      Then the Dyson sphere needs to be constructed. There isn't much material in an average planetary system to do that, unless you can transmute your common silicon and carbon into scrith and make a thin foil out of it. You also need to deliver that material to where it is needed, and join it. A Ringworld is a much easier possibility at this point.

      Once you build the sphere you need to equip it with collectors of solar energy. Where would they come from? If we build a sphere at 1AU from the Sun, do you think we can line it with solar panels? We'd have not one atom left in this Solar system after we built the sphere. Besides, the sheer volume of the effort would be impossible.

      The sphere would need to be thermally balanced. (This is how they intend to find it.) If you collect all the energy and keep it inside it will heat up to the temperature of the star - and that is perhaps not what you want. So you need to cool it. Earth is rotating, radiating heat every night and collecting it every day. Planets like Mercury show what happens when a planet is thermally overloaded. The Dyson sphere would have to have radiators of energy somewhere on the external side, and there would have to be conduits. This is a lot of work.

      Then the question would arise of atmosphere. Is your Dyson sphere is at 1AU then you need to live on that sphere - and that means that you must have means of holding the atmosphere in place. If you leave Earth (for example) in place and instead build the sphere on a farther orbit then the surface of your sphere grows and you need even more material. Also the problem of transportation of collected energy arises.

      Considering these and other technological and conceptual difficulties, it may be easier to just use local sources of energy, like thermonuclear reactors or better. Astronomers, of course, want something to look at, and you can't look for reactors that far away. I don't think they will find Dyson spheres, though. A civilization that is advanced enough to build such a sphere probably does not need it.

    23. 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.

    24. Re:Flawed assumptions. by sexconker · · Score: 5, Funny

      So? From the viewpoint of someone standing still, he can still not move faster then the speed of light. And any time he drops off a toy, he has to either slow down slowly, or subject the toy itself to extreme g forces. Since toys arrive in a non-squished condition (and they are generally not resistant to high g, as the kids soon discover), then Santa has to slow them down slowly - taking quite a bit of time for every toy dropped off.

      Each toy is delivered with the elf who made it.
      The elf slows the toy down on descent, places it neatly, and promptly burns itself to death in the fire place. If you don't have a fireplace the elf will flush itself, use the garbage disposal, provoke the dog into eating it, or, failing all of those, walk outside and freeze to death. Most people confuse their bodies for garden gnomes.

    25. Re:Flawed assumptions. by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Bees, ants, wasps, and nearly all other social insects are also adapted to living with a gender-bending endo-parasite.

      Namely, the wolbachia parasite. It is a protozoan that inhabits cellular cytoplasm of the cells of those species of insects, and procreates through forcing males to develop as females, because it can only perptuate itself through the larger ova of those species, and not through the smaller sperm of those species.

      As such, the centralized reproductive practice of those organisms is directly tied to the limitations imposed upon them by the highly aggressive wolbachia parasite.

      Removal of the parasite through aggressive use of antibiotics has shown radical changes in cytoplasmic composition and embryonic development, which results in sexual infertility and even outright death in many infected species.

      http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0958315031000110355

      Literally, these lifeforms have become very efficient host vehicles for their parasites, and their reproductive strategies more closely favor proliferation of the parasite than their own.

      Essentially, the parasites have forces their hosts to evolve in such a way that the host's behavior has been altered significantly.

      The effects of wolbachia infection on the behavior of insect model species has been well researched. Take for instance, a study of wolbachia on mosquitos.

      http://m.sciencemag.org/content/323/5910/141.short

      What I a getting at here is that the existence of communal reproduction centric organisms like bees and wasps does not negate the validity of the prior poster's statement, because the bees and wasps did not develop this strategy so much as have it impose upon them by a more aggressive species that does conserve the poster's conjecture.

    26. Re:Flawed assumptions. by leonardluen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Most people confuse their bodies for garden gnomes.

      the parent has a point, have you actually seen anyone purchase a garden gnome?

    27. 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.
    28. Re:Flawed assumptions. by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      Relative velocity time dilation has been understood for years. Please leave your geek card at the door on the way out.

      Reltive velocity time dilation only theoretically solves the time aspect of the problem, and only if you neglect the fact that at least the delivered presents have to STOP in my frame of reference..

      I don't care how damn amazing a Wii U is supposed to be, when 1.5 kg of mass rips to a halt under my Christmas tree from, let's be generous here, 0.9c, the resulting vaporization of my house (k.e. ~ 0.5mv^2, or 1.09*10^17 joules, or 26.06 Mt of TNT) is going to result in a very unhappy Christmas.

    29. Re:Flawed assumptions. by pastafazou · · Score: 4, Funny

      that's easy. His requirements to make the "good" list are so unrealistic, he doesn't have to make any deliveries. Guilty parents then buy gifts for their brats, and Santa collects the glory!

    30. 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.
    31. Re:Flawed assumptions. by TeknoHog · · Score: 4, Funny

      And that's why it's called Rudolf the Redshift Reindeer.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  2. Let me predict.... by slashping · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They'll find nothing.

    1. Re:Let me predict.... by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They'll find nothing.

      Probably, but the issue is whether it's worth looking. If there was a detectable civilization in our range, and it later was discovered that we could have detected it much earlier via a relatively small expenditure, we'd be kicking ourselves in the ass.

      Plus, it may lead to the discovery of a new unexpected natural phenomenon.

      - Sara N. Dipity.

    2. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    where would you get enough matter

    Obviously harvested from the home planets of other civilizations they've destroyed. What a silly question.

  4. 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!
  5. 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.

  6. Re:First space-faring race = a bunch of nutjobs by PPalmgren · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's only given all civilizations started at roughly the same time. However, this isn't Civilization V. A space-faring race could have formed a contigous civilization several hundred thousands or millions of years ago, not a couple thousand years like ours. It might be the natural evolution of things at that point.

  7. TFA is educated stupid by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

  8. Re:Runs out of energy? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!
  9. 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.

  10. Re:energy leakeage by Hentes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Energy can't be used for work, only energy difference can. If they didn't radiate away the captured sunlight they would overheat very quickly.

  11. 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

  12. Disruptive bluffing by cellocgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  13. 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!

  14. Re:what about nuclear fusion? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    There really is no way to build a 0.35mm steel plate in space for more than 500 miles without it collapsing into a rubble pile.

    Dyson was well aware of that. A Dyson Sphere is not a connected solid sphere. It can consist of billions or trillions of independently orbiting structures, such as O'Neill Cylinders.

    A solid structure would be a Ringworld, which is impossible to construct with our current understanding of reality.

  15. Re:what about nuclear fusion? by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Matter-antimatter reactions may have extremely high power density, but there's a big problem: where do you get the antimatter from? It's unlikely there's large naturally-occurring deposits of it available anywhere, since it annihilates itself when it contacts matter. M-A energy sources really only make sense as a way of storing energy, not producing it. Even Star Trek takes this position: the starships use antimatter for propulsion, but only because of the energy/power density it offers, and it's produced artificially specifically for this purpose, probably using solar energy production.

    Energy is a primary need of any civilization. Every civilization has to get it somewhere. Back in the early days, we got our energy from the sun solely: we used it to grow crops (for food) and feed our animals (for transportation), and to power our ships (for water-based transportation; we used the sun to produce wind to power these ships; luckily, we didn't have to produce the wind ourselves, as natural processes had already done this for us, but we took advantage of it). These days, we largely get our energy from hydrocarbons created millions of years ago by solar-fueled processes, though we're getting some power from nuclear fission (where we break apart large atoms that were created in stars long ago). In short, we get energy where we can find it naturally-occurring. A more advanced civilization will probably be no different: though it may convert energy from one form to another, it'll have to mine that energy from somewhere, and the most obvious source is a nearby star which is giving off lots of energy for free already. Of course, if they figure out how to get energy directly from quantum fluctuations, or by mining antimatter from a parallel universe or something, then they might not need stars any more, but that sounds even more advanced than a Kardashev Class II civilization which we're talking about here.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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?