Slashdot Mirror


SETI Fails To Detect Signals Coming From KIC 8462852 (examiner.com)

MarkWhittington writes: Rare excitement spread through the scientific community and the media when data from the Kepler Space Telescope indicated something strange going on around a star 1,500 light years away called KIC 8462852. An analysis of the pattern of light coming from the star suggested that a swarm of smaller objects was orbiting the planet. Scientists narrowed down the possible explanations for the data to either a swarm of comets or a group of alien megastructures. According to a story in Space Daily, an examination of KIC 8462852 by SETI, using the Allen Telescope Array, has failed to find any evidence that ET exists around that particular star.

99 comments

  1. This assumes they are using radio waves, correct? by Hussman32 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If ET were there, couldn't there be other E-M methods that would attenuate before reaching earth? Not saying there are beings there, but just because radio waves aren't there doesn't mean they aren't.

    --
    "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
  2. So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are SETI looking in the same place at the same point the spectrum as the experiment that detected this phenomenon?

    No.

    1. Re:So what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha

      his mama so fat they had to put glasses on the Hubble just to see all the bitch.

  3. There is nobody out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There is no one else out there. Time is big. Really big. The chances of two civilizations existing concurrently is extremely extremely low. Think about it: our modern civilization has lasted a very short time. Even if our civilization lasts another 500 years (doubtful), the chances that another civilization will exist in that same timeframe is extremely unlikely.

    1. Re: There is nobody out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't happen at the same time everywhere. For example, in another world idiots like you haven't evolved yet. And on yet another planet, they evolved but weren't able to find a mate (sound familiar?) and went extinct.

    2. Re:There is nobody out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many millions of years were the dinosaurs around?

      Where is the evidence that the dinosaurs, with millions of years evolution, developed civilization?

      Yeah, evolution is fact, and is currently happening. But based on the evidence at hand, being this planet, the odds of of a given species developing civilization seem to be about 1 in 4 billion; probably lower.

      So based on those probabilities, instead of the 'suggested values' for happy yea aliens Drake Equation, not even every Galaxy is populated with a civilization, let alone one that could communicate over inter-galactic distances.

    3. Re: There is nobody out there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't happen at the same time everywhere. For example, in another world idiots like you haven't evolved yet. And on yet another planet, they evolved but weren't able to find a mate (sound familiar?) and went extinct.

      In some worlds idiots like you reproduce by masturbation, but those idiots are too busy to invent radio. Too busy Fapping.

    4. Re:There is nobody out there... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      From what we know the universe should be teeming with life, so where is everybody?

      This is the question Drake was actually asking with the "Drake equation". It's not a huge stretch to imagine species that develop fossil fuel technology self destruct in a very short time (geologically speaking). A fate not that different from fermenting yeast in a sealed container.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    5. Re:There is nobody out there... by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you saying that we are the universe's beer?

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
  4. Just proves SETI likely useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I figure they should try to fight to be relevant, but they are very likely not going to find anything through radio with sufficiently advanced technology.

  5. In other news, dog bites man, politician corrupt by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just how is SETI not finding a signal in anyway shape or form news ?

  6. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by dadelbunts · · Score: 1

    Even we are moving from lossy radio signals into lossless signals. And we have only been broadcasting shit for 100 years or so.

  7. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    If ET were there, couldn't there be other E-M methods that would attenuate before reaching earth? Not saying there are beings there, but just because radio waves aren't there doesn't mean they aren't.

    If ET were there, transmitting on RF with the same power we use for radio/TV signals - our detectors aren't even good enough to hear it over noise.

  8. QuBits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Integrated Circuits embodying the quantum effects needed to make quantum computers are nearing commercial availability.

    Spooky action at a distance has more or less been proven to be microminatue t-space or s-space worm holes .. so particle interconnectedness without EM fields is about to become common place.. and a lot more reliable than propagation phenomena.

    We tend to see everything in terms of what we know "right now" and can't seem to move beyond and accept we will know more later...

    A civilization cable of planetary or stellar construction projects would almost certainly have communications at the Speed of Inflation (I) far faster than the Speed of Light (C) so I think we're looking down a dark alley.

    1. Re:QuBits by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Entanglement does not facilitate the transfer of information.
      Entanglement does not enable FTL communication.
      Entanglement does not violate causality.

    2. Re:QuBits by jcims · · Score: 1

      I think it does. It's how we solve the black hole information paradox. Hawking radiation tunnels the information back out into meatspace by entangled virtual particles. The anti particle half collides with a real particle inside the event horizon, causing the real half to transform into the portion of the real particle that merged with the antiparticle.

    3. Re:QuBits by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. We understand entanglement very well. It was Einstein that just didn't' really like it. But we have done real experiments many times. No information transfer, no FTL, hell we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve either. Well at least a lot of us do.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    4. Re:QuBits by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      That last point- do you mean that:
      > Factoring is NP complete, and entanglement won't work the way it is supposed to in Shor's algorithm*?
      > Factoring is P, and shor's algorithm only works for that reason?
      > Factoring is a special case, but entanglement doesn't solve a broad or general set of NP problems?
      > Something else?

      *You probably don't mean this one because Shor's algorithm has been used small numbers already, right?

    5. Re:QuBits by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Factoring is an NP problem, but there's no particular reason to believe that it's in P or that it's NP-complete. (Of course, if P==NP, it's both in P and NP-complete.) I don't quite get what you mean by "special case", since problems are in P or NP or are NP-hard based on the algorithms that will solve them. Since classical and quantum computers do somewhat different things, it's possible that a problem is in P on a quantum computer and not in P on a classical computer.

      Of course, if a quantum computer can solve one NP-complete problem in normal time, it (possibly in conjunction with a classical computer) can solve any problem in NP in normal time. That's at least some evidence that factoring isn't NP-complete.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    6. Re:QuBits by Cramer · · Score: 1

      We understand entanglement very well.

      We think we do. History has shown a lot of the things we "know" were, in fact, incorrect. (at best, incomplete) Given our current understanding and technology, entanglement is little more than a novelty. We simply don't know how to use it to transmit information -- at all, at any speed. (then there's the issue of getting the entanglement to last long enough to span a useful distance. A few mm in a lab is just more novelty.)

    7. Re:QuBits by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to figure out what the poster is saying by "we even suspect that it won't even make NP complete problems easier to solve". If factoring is NP complete (the first case), then does he mean that somehow Shor's algorithm is not ACTUALLY helping solve an NP complete problem? Like, the little bit of quantum processing we have is actually working by another mechanism that would break down if extended to large numbers of qubits, meaning that he's claiming a problem with quantum mechanics?

      Or does he mean, that factoring is in P (a real possibility), and that the demonstrated trivial uses of Shor's algorithms are only reflecting something that could be solved in polynomial time without quantum stuff, if only we had the algorithm? Like, that it's only interesting because we are solving a classical polynomial problem that we just lack the classical polynomial time algorithm for?

      Or does he mean, factoring is a "special case" - meaning an NP problem that is not in P that is solved in polynomial time by Shor's algorithm, but that he suspects that nothing else will come of quantum computing, like it can't solve any OTHER NP problems, nor any NP Complete problems, just this one (or a very narrow subset), for some special reason no one knows?

      I'm obviously referring to classical computing when I mention P or NP, just as the poster I am responding to is. It's meaningless to say "make NP complete problems easier to solve" if it's referring to anything but the common usage of problems that are NP complete in classical, but could be solved in polynomial time on a quantum computer.

    8. Re:QuBits by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Factoring is probably not NP-complete. It's a well-studied problem, and nobody's come up with an NP-completeness proof. It's likely not in P, for much the same reason: people have studied it a lot and haven't found a polynomial algorithm. If P != NP, there are going to be levels between P and NP, and therefore problems that are in neither. The best bet, from what I've seen, is that factoring is one of those in-between problems. (If P == NP, all of this is moot, as all NP problems are then both NP-complete and in P.)

      Shor's algorithm solves factoring problems efficiently (or so I've been told; I know less than I like about quantum computing). We know this. I think I read somewhere that quantum computing can't solve NP-complete problems in P time, but don't rely on what I say for that. (The definition of a NP-complete problem is that a problem is in NP, and if it can be solved in polynomial time so can all other problems in NP.)

      So, I'd say the poster meant that quantum computing solves some NP problems that are not in P and aren't NP-complete efficiently, but not all of them. He clearly meant that NP-complete problems would not be quantum computable in reasonable or polynomial time.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:QuBits by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I meant that factoring is has not been shown to be in NP and that solving factoring faster is not evidence that quantum computers can solve NP problems faster than NP. I am being sloppy with terms here of course.

      It has been speculated that no quantum computer can solve NP-complete/hard problems "faster" (ie in P). But then we also have a *very* small set of quantum algorithms to do anything at all. It just so happens that on of them is factoring. With large constants and a heavy burden on total number of operations needed and a fairly heavy classical computing burden as well. But it is still doable in P time.

      Yea a little late to the party.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    10. Re:QuBits by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Just because you don't understand doesn't mean other don't. And no there has never been a " oh shit we must have just got all this data wrong for 200 years" moment in science. The data and results remain. New theory are not new. They tweak. And we have a lot of data that supports 2 things. FTL of things or information is time travel. Entanglement does not transmit information.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  9. Two possible explanations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In other news, I recently discovered my car wouldn't start. I've narrowed it down to two possible explanations: either the battery is dead or my cat has telepathic powers and doesn't want me to leave. I have been unable to find evidence of my cat's telepathic powers. Just thought you'd like to know.

    1. Re:Two possible explanations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I have telepathic powers and knew you didn't want to go to work so I disconnected your battery.

    2. Re:Two possible explanations... by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Your cat would want you to go to work so it could lick it's ass in peace for a change.

  10. Re:First transmission to be received by sexconker · · Score: 0

    M
    y
    t
    h

    B
    u
    s
    t
    e
    d

  11. No real ET found yet? Still? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough searching and false alarms already - it's about time someone found someone else to talk to out there. Way too much empty space.

  12. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Kjella · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If ET were there, transmitting on RF with the same power we use for radio/TV signals - our detectors aren't even good enough to hear it over noise.

    From what I understand it's primarily going to pick up military radar or intentional "pings", signal broadcast is very weak compared to radars trying to detect stealth aircraft that is diverting 99%+ of the signal away from the source. There's not really any reason to send radio/TV signals with that power and for information efficiency we're going to encode them so they're almost indistinguishable from noise anyway. The latter is obviously the best since they're the only ones likely to have any information content we could positively identify. So at least for our current level of technology they have to want to be found.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  13. Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because there's a difference between not finding it after checking and not finding it after not-checking...?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  14. SETI scientist are proving themselves incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First off SETI is incapable of discerning signals from noise at >200 LY's away. Secondly, aliens with Dyson Swarms are in now way communicating with crappy, inefficient radiowaves. They are likely using laser based communication or something even more exotic.

    I really do hope the next look at 2017 reveals even greater light fluctuation, proving definitively an alien megastructure. Hopefully they lend over some scientist cause our current crop aren't meeting specification.

  15. Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup by hirundo · · Score: 2

    tl;dr: They saw something funny there at high frequencies. So it's news that they don't see anything funny at lower frequencies.

  16. "Failed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the aliens want us to think. Bastards.

    1. Re:"Failed" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think about it, SETI is the best place for aliens to work.

  17. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Exactly. I would imagine any species sufficiently advanced to do planetary and solar system engineering, probably has moved beyond EM communications. In fact, I really feel that the theory that advanced civilizations will only use radio for a fairly narrow period before moving to other means of communications really means SETI is doomed. That window is probably only a few hundred years, and considering that anything but a very directed high powered signal is likely to dissipate within a few light years of the planet of origin, it's the wrong approach. We could be surrounded by civilizations at our level of development within a few thousand light year window and never hear a single signal from them, and visa versa.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  18. SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 1

    I spent years donating my computing time to SETI, when I started to investigate how they did what they did and alien life on my own.

    First and foremost - SETI leverages Radio telescopes for discovery of life on other planets.

    Most human life - is visually and auditory in nature - so when I started asking questions such as 'why are they looking for radio communications and radio evidence of life, when there's a high probability that life on other planets which is like us may have gone down different developmental paths?

    How do I put this in English. Radio is an imagined construct created through a collective agreement our population has with our reality.

    Now what's to say - even remotely suggest - that life on other planets may have the same thought on reality, let alone have invented or messed with radio waves?

    I know, I know the argument. There's certain imprints of civilization that should be searchable via radio astronomy, it draws a picture of the cosmos.

    That's not entirely true.

    It draws a picture based on our understanding of the universe. But if our collective understanding of the universe is myopic. Then SETI is the equivalent of looking for a needle in a haystack with a remote controlled robot while blindfolded.

    Sorry. I don't trust anything SETI has to say anymore.

    Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.

    1. Re:SETI's fail by Hylandr · · Score: 1

      tl;dr :

      >Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.

      Just this right here.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    2. Re:SETI's fail by RubberDogBone · · Score: 1

      Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.

      But SETI and most of the other programs are in fact searching space not for aliens at all, but looking for another instance of beings exactly like us. Not found more just like us this week? Oh well, keep trying! Got to be another Hoboken New Jersey out there somewhere.

      It's just stupid.

      --
      Sig for hire.
    3. Re: SETI's fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The I in SETI is kind of hinting that.

    4. Re:SETI's fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lmao auditory

      How the fuck do you expect to hear something 20 light years away?

      Also, there is an optical SETI, but do you want to talk about signal to noise ratios trying to optically detect a planet next to a star, let alone a laser pointer on that planet?

    5. Re:SETI's fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly checking for radio transmission or signaling is probably going to be your best indicator of auditory beings to begin with, as a species that uses sound for communication is more likely to discover the use of modulated radio waves to transmit sound data faster than sound propogates.

      Even if audio radio transmissions aren't likely to reach us it still makes it much more likely that such a species would discover secondary uses for it such as radar that ARE more noticeable.

    6. Re:SETI's fail by spauldo · · Score: 2

      Radio is an imagined construct created through a collective agreement our population has with our reality.

      Radio is the propagation of electromagnetic radiation through space.

      It's the same everywhere in the universe. Mankind didn't "invent" radio, we discovered it. It's a major side effect of one of the four basic forces of the universe.

      We're too distant to pick up communication (unless that communication is intentional and either aimed right at us or very powerful - or both). However, if the aliens are using microwave power or space-based RADAR, we might be able to pick that up.

      Logic suggests we need to look for evidence of visual and auditory beings leveraging more than just radio waves.

      We're doing the visual part (which is just higher-frequency radio, really) with telescopes. That's how they found the "objects" in the first place.

      As far as auditory goes, I'm not sure exactly what you expect them to do.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    7. Re:SETI's fail by cfalcon · · Score: 2

      Eh, I only agree with you in part. SETI won't find casual RF communications at long distances, and maybe not even short distances. SETI absolutely could find a species that is looking to communicate (for ill or good). This is because RF communications are a really solid way to get a message across a lot of galactic scale space, when pretty much nothing else could do so very easily. You'd have to be directing that communication, is the big catch, over most distances that are interesting, so it sort of assumes that there's at least one species within the light cone that wants to send a message AND has enough tech AND has enough energy to be beaming us their insurance ads or whatever.

      The "how do other species develop" thing isn't that interesting- If you're a species asking "how do we say hello to others really far away", then RF is a pretty solid answer- even if you didn't start with the idea of radio because you never cared about what it offered you locally, because if you are trying to communicate at distance you aren't focused on how to communicate with beings that speak or think exactly like you. So if your species never used RF at all, you'd still look into it if wanted to beam a message to specific stars or something.

      The flipside- detecting aliens who aren't actively trying to send a message- requires thoughts like those in your post for certain, but it also presupposes a level of tech that we mostly don't seem to have.

    8. Re:SETI's fail by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Totally agree. Life is all around us here on the earth and most of it is related to us, yet none of it uses radio. This alone should tell us radio is a rare thing, not a common thing.

      But SETI isn't supposed to find space jellyfish, it's trying to find people who are actively trying to make their presence known (and likely send a message).

      It's not SETL. You aren't looking for extraterrestrial life. You're looking for extraterrestrial intelligence- specifically, that which is trying to find an easy way to say "hello" (or "kneel", or "build me some Von Neumann probes"), over a vast distance.

      We don't have a way to find a planet teeming with life that isn't intelligent, or is intelligent but isn't trying to send a postcard.

    9. Re:SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      Don't think of this as a level of tech...

      Tech branches. Let's say you have a culture where an event like World War 1 never happened. Or where they didn't have an Adam and Eve like figure who asked them to cover up.

      How dramatically would technology differently had you gone down different developmental paths and never had world war OR clothes to contend with?

      My guess is - dramatically different. So much so. You may not have radio or tv and may have different means and methods of communication.

      Seems pretty simple logically speaking to understand this.

    10. Re:SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      Thanks for putting succinctly what I said in too many words! No sarcasm, you hit the point I was trying to make on the head!

      On that note, many might debate the sentience of animal life, until you see dogs and cats opening refrigerators to get food for themselves on youtube where you gotta question that logic. .

    11. Re:SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      My advice is to read the dictionary before commenting next time.

      On Earth as I know it, we hear and see our environment and have structured a society based on that.

      So what's the evidence of this type of society from afar?

      Looking for invisible signals and scanning the sky with invisible signals that we 'discovered' and signs of development along the same evolutionary path as our own?

      That's silly.

      There's a question along the same lines of Shrodinger's cat hopefully you'll be able to understand:

      "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?"

      If it emits no sound waves, then no.

      When does it not emit sound waves?

      A simulation. I believe the universe is holographic and I am in a giant simulation. I have found enough personal evidence to support this.

      That being the case. If another civilization has developed the capability and understanding what a radio wave is, let alone how to properly react to it, then maybe they'll be found using those methods.

      But if they don't want to be found. They as a society merely do not implement that method of discovery.

      You're not a programmer are you?

      For me. I would look for more direct ways to detect sound and visual organization and structure in these distant locations.

      But then again. I am looking for life who thinks more like I do ;-).

    12. Re:SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      Again, as Audio/Visual and sensory based stimulus, they are leveraging invisible radio waves trying to find life that may have developed down the same exact evolutionary path as you?

      Doesn't make logical sense. Maybe there's other civilizations which invented computers far earlier and never made it to radio?

      Or maybe there's civilizations out there who have something called 'subspace' which leverages spectrums and signals your planet hasn't discovered yet.

      Seriously, you don't see the flaw in logic that says "if I am looking for something you wont tell me what it is in a haystack, then I should use a magnet?"

      Efficient? Perhaps. Practical? When you don't know what you're looking for and it's a piece of thread that's not magnetic. Let's be real.

      Heck no.

      When you narrow the possibilities of life based on a single solitary observational method, you'll never find life.

      it's silly i tell you.

    13. Re:SETI's fail by MakersDirector · · Score: 0

      read the above comment i replied.

      Quit assuming everything has the same evolutionary path and receptiveness to your methods of discovery that you do.

  19. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Spitzer is capable of detecting it as a very faint signal, knowing that the actual source is a star. If they are using EM communication, the prower is probably orders of magnitude smaller than the star emission itself. Good luck, catching that with sufficient SNR in the radio domain...

  20. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    Correct, obviously the shark people of KIC 8462852 would use frickin lasers!

  21. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair, failure to detect radio signals isn't assuming other forms of signals. It is a failure to detect.

  22. Failure means nothing by RubberDogBone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We have never had ANY reason to assume aliens of any kind use radio as we know it. Even among the life forms on Earth, many of which are very closely related to us, absolutely NONE of them have developed or discovered radio except humans. So therefore, we already know radio happens 1 in some billions of species even when they are our close relatives.

    Among aliens unlikely to be anything like us, we have to assume that they may never have found radio, or use it differently. SETI essentially looks out into space looking to find ourselves. This is just ludicrous. What little we know about space and other planets tells us the universe is incredibly diverse. We aren't going to find another US out there. So no wonder they have always failed.

    --
    Sig for hire.
    1. Re:Failure means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is your point exactly? That we should be trying to detect interstellar civilizations using sound waves, perhaps? Or pheromones? Or maybe they use their blue backsides for signaling, as mandrills do? It turns out that using various segments of the EM spectrum can be extremely efficient and accurate across vast distances, so until some indistinguishable-from-magic technology comes along that surpasses it, that seems like a pretty reasonable bet.

    2. Re:Failure means nothing by m.alessandrini · · Score: 1

      Even among the life forms on Earth, many of which are very closely related to us, absolutely NONE of them have developed or discovered radio except humans

      Are you serious? Or kidding? Or stupid?

    3. Re:Failure means nothing by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Well we don't use radio waves either. We create machines, tools if you will, that convert things we do communicate in into and from radio waves. An intelligent alien presumably is smart enough to make equivalent tools. It is not like the laws of physics are different everywhere. You want wireless communications, you go EM waves.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    4. Re:Failure means nothing by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Clearly he/she is all 3. Why pick just one?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    5. Re:Failure means nothing by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      > Or pheromones?
      Fry, ready the smelloscope !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    6. Re:Failure means nothing by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      None of the other species developed tech besides the level and maybe the wheel, though. We obviously can't get a message from sapients that can't send one or aren't trying, and definitely not unintelligent life- that's the I in SETI, after all.

      There's a short list of effects that can span distance, and photons are at the top. It doesn't matter what they developed with- if they are sending signal, then they are a lot more advanced than us, and they'll know that radio is a reasonable thing, even if they never gave a shit about it themselves.

    7. Re:Failure means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Neither Orientals nor Africans had the slight idea about EM but knew everything about spirits and that s it.

    8. Re:Failure means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At this time, it could be said these aliens exist in the same universe as us and therefore subject to the same laws of the universe (that we call "science").

      So it would be a valid presumption to think that an alien species with advanced enough intelligence has understood the electromagnetic spectrum and then found a use for it; that a project like SETI might be able to help distinguish.

      To think that an alien culture that is observable from earth is subject to different laws of the universe than us, is a more ludicrous idea. What is your science to support this point of view ?

  23. I propose this as #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the book "Yet a completely separate 13 things that don't make sense.. again".

  24. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    ...but it does make it more likely.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:Absence of proof is not proof of absence.. by rail2rail · · Score: 1

      What? How can you possibly gauge the likelihood or odds? If I told you that I put my head underwater and didn't see any fish, does that mean the likelihood of there being fish in the ocean went down? No, it means I'm not looking in the right places. The odds of ET is unknown. Our feeble attempts to find them don't factor into those odds at all.

    2. Re:Absence of proof is not proof of absence.. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If we don't know whether fish exist, and you stick your head underwater in the ocean and don't see any, that is evidence against the existence of fish. It isn't very strong evidence, since the ocean is big and these "fish" might be somewhere else.

      The probability of a single proposition is philosophically a bit iffy, but individuals tend to have opinions on those things, and we can regard people's opinions as making up a probability. It's certainly fuzzy logic, if not specifically probability.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  25. Do Dyson Spheres let out radio frequencies? by t4eXanadu · · Score: 1

    If it's a Dyson Sphere, would radio waves pass through it? If not, then this tells us nothing.

    1. Re:Do Dyson Spheres let out radio frequencies? by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      I personally think that this whole concept of a Dyson Sphere and the civilisation 1-4 scale is misleading and implausible. There is no good reason to believe that any civilisation would harness all of the (centralized) energy of a whole sun rather than using many small energy sources like fusion reactors or whatever else might be possible in future.

    2. Re:Do Dyson Spheres let out radio frequencies? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      If it's a Dyson Sphere, would radio waves pass through it?

      Yes. Dyson Spheres aren't solid.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    3. Re:Do Dyson Spheres let out radio frequencies? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We've got a nice gravity-contained fusion reactor about 93 million miles from here. It's pretty reliable, and it's not going to cause too many bad side effects at this distance. (At least not for the next few hundred million years.) If we needed lots and lots of energy, and had a spacefaring civilization, why would we build all those teeny little fusion reactors when we have a really big one set up and ready to go? Most of the fusion fuel is also in our handy star, and we'll top out the energy we can get from fusion reactors a lot faster than we'll top out what we can get from the Sun.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  26. Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup by jopsen · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just how is SETI not finding a signal in anyway shape or form news ?

    Following the scientific method a negative result is an equally valid result ;)

  27. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

    Lossless? there is no such thing. Even in fiber you need signal boosters. Anything propagating in space is attenuated with the inverse square law, it is conservation of energy.

    --
    The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
  28. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps he meant lossless communication protocols over noisy channels. (Which has nothing to do with radio waves vs X, of course, so I agree with you.)

  29. Radio waves seems so outdated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your trying to communicate with a ET then why do we think they are using radio waves of some kind? If you take into account any of the UFO close encounters on Earth and have a open mind about them. I don't think any of them have given any kind of evidence of using radio waves. Most close encounters such as abductions seem to use telepathy to communicate. Any of the UFO sightings have never to my recall talk about picking up any kind of strange communications.
    In essence the ideal that ET's use the same forms as we do for communication is simply having a closed mind and assumes we as humans have the best form of communication. Its almost like Seti searching Facebook for a ET profile? Its about that dumb.

  30. They are looking for engines too... by denzacar · · Score: 2

    Two different types of radio signals were sought:

    (1) Narrow-band signals, of order 1 Hz in width, such as would be generated as a "hailing signal" for societies wishing to announce their presence.
    This is the type of signal most frequently looked for by radio SETI experiments.
    (2) Broad-band signals that might be due to beamed propulsion within this star system.

    If astroengineering projects are really underway in the vicinity of KIC 8462852, one might reasonably expect the presence of spacecraft to service this activity.
    If these craft are propelled by intense microwave beams, some of that energy might manifest itself as broad-band radio leakage.

    They are looking for possible "engine noise" too.
    So far... well... nothing.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  31. Intercepted Transmission Home by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    Come in..., come in please..., Mother Star KIC 8462852. Those of us in the Earth-planet system recently had a close one. Apparently, the thought implants we used on their presidential candidates to make them crazy wasn't enough to keep the humans distracted, and the primitive humans almost deduced where we came from. Nonetheless, we assure you they *are* primitive. When we studied something referred to as TFA, it implied "a level approaching 1027 watts" of radiated power was substantial.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  32. Now you publish this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus, are you kidding? This is last week's story. You think people on Slashdot don't know this already??

  33. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. I honestly don't see how SETI can survive.

    Most alien species you can think of will barely use radio for that long a period.
    Eventually we will figure out a way to use neutrinos for communication.
    MAYBE we figure out a way to use quantum entanglement.
    Maybe there is some other-worldly communication method we haven't even begun to think about yet, like "sub-space", gravity waves or something else.

    Even if they were using satellites in space, they'd be directional and not particularly high-powered.
    Space itself is generally not even that empty either. And there is a LOT of it between here and other planets. That signal is going to get destroyed just by the ratio of particles across that distance. It will basically become a brick wall if you shrink it down.
    And that is just on interference from particles, the signal is going to spread out and lose power over time. Doesn't matter how straight a laser you produce, it still has to travel across space and space itself isn't nothing, it is just less than air.

    Long-distance communication like this will almost certainly have to be x-ray or above levels of communication, and most likely on the scale of an average moon to be heard at any reasonable distances.

  34. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

    I think he meant "non-leaking to space RF" signals (i.e. fiber optic cables). In other words, communication power is not 'lost' to space, therefore detectable by aliens.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  35. Re:In other news, dog bites man, politician corrup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just how is SETI not finding a signal in anyway shape or form news ?

    Because it's proof that the aliens of KIC 8462852 have superior signal masking technologies.

  36. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Why are we even assuming that they'd be reliant on E-M technology? If they are building a Dyson sphere isn't it possible they've moved to something more exotic. I mean by their standards we're still using two tin cans and a piece of string

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

  37. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by silentcoder · · Score: 2

    Well SETI didn't say they weren't there, they just said they haven't found any evidence of somebody being there. Since SETI only checks radio spectrum signals - that lack of proof is limited to that domain.

    Unfortunately we really don't have much technology for doing any other kind of looking right now, nor the funding to develop any, nor the political will to supply the funding.

    Who knows what we may have missed (not just with this case but in the 20-odd years since SETI lost it's original budget), because we weren't willing to listen a little harder ?

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  38. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 2

    They are probably using sub-space communications......once we invent devices that work in that domain, we will probably pick up all kinds of ET chatter! ;)

    --
    You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
  39. What SETI is really doing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've been using your computer to mine bitcoins before they were cool (or even real).

  40. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Coren22 · · Score: 1

    Also, laser communications is being investigated. That type of communication wouldn't even be noticeable at 1500 LY.

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  41. Coren22 likes being bitchslapped 65++:1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I guess we should avoid your crap, it looks like it is marked as malware. Good luck getting that removed." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Monday November 02, 2015 @03:52PM (#50850445)

    It's safe proven by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    +

    Its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

    &

    More "SALT IN YOUR WOUNDS" -> http://f.virscan.org/APKHostsF...

    ---

    MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

    APK

    P.S.=> /.'ers say my work is good too:

    "his hosts program is actually pretty good" - by xenotransplant (4179011) on Monday August 10, 2015 @03:34PM (#50287195)

    "I like your host file system." - by Karmashock (2415832) on Wednesday September 09, 2015 @03:57PM (#50489401)

    "APK is kinda right... I've given up on JS based adblocking and gone to blackholing in /etc/hosts, just like it was back in the 90s. The computational load has gotten intolerable for any ad-blocking using JS. I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works." - by bmo (77928) on Thursday October 15, 2015 @11:30AM (#50736071)

    "his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources" by alexgieg (948359) on Friday September 25, 2015 @09:57AM (#50596461)

    ... apk

  42. Coren22 likes failing security & coding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Coren22 says "hosts=bad" (they add security, speed, & reliability) & bitches on admin priv to UPDATE vs. threats

    "So, have you figured out why privilege escalation is a bad thing yet?" - by Coren22 on Tuesday September 22, 2015 @05:15PM (#50577809)

    & admits using admin priv himself

    +

      How else can I programmatically update hosts minus it in Windows?

    ---

    "Of course it requires elevation to write to the hosts file" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 23, 2015 @05:35PM (#50585879)

    You FINALLY later admit there's no other way!

    FACT:

    Even MalwareBytes AntiMalware (best one) DEMANDS you use admin privelege (you saying it's "bad" too?) it can't do its job fully otherwise, like many security tools do!

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly - Coren22, there is a CURE for your "outism" due to your retarded by assburgers clearly defective brain (lol) - quit making childish sigs about me & sockpuppet accounts as well as telling lies about me - I'll stop OUTING you signature boy troll that you are... apk

  43. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    To my mind, the search for life would be better spent on ever better optical telescopes. We can already "sniff" the atmospheres of exoplanets to some extent, and we're probably within a few decades of being able to directly image significant features of Earth-sized planets, not to mention finding evidence of at least photosynthesizing life (which would almost certainly infer a complex biosphere on such a planet).

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  44. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he did, then he's pretty stupid, because we still broadcast plenty of RF for other purposes beyond commnications. Radar signals for example.

  45. REPOST: 1 thing MAY come out good via SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: They've "got down" what they *think* are signalling worlds indicative of civilization w/ technology we might actually learn from (the way we think communication should be & others here have rightly pointed out as a weakness in our methods, HOW WE THINK, not necessarily how alien beings might - ADDING THAT since my last post was downmoderated by my stalking trolling fans for no good reason last time I posted this, as usual as it's their only effete 'weapon' vs. facts which I override easily via unlimited ac posting I do -> http://science.slashdot.org/co... ) & they're now looking @ the infrared spectrum for worlds in the 'habitable zone' for life like ours (liquid water via spectography iirc etc.) - so, this may help one day as data for "stellar cartography" by COMBINING the worlds that fit BOTH CRITERIA...

    * It's a BIG universe & shaving down the possibles for the cosmic submariners (lol) would be a BIG help I would think!

    APK

    P.S.=> I did this from 1999-2004 iirc for "Team MICROSOFT" as username AlecStaar - & that was what kept me in the game essentially... I'd like to contribute if possible (had a few 'spikes' in the data I processed, & it'd be nice to know that one day, it may lead to "earth 2")... apk

  46. Coren22 can't keep his word... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & links where I tried to make peace - says it all w/ proof of it from his trolling "signature boy" mouth http://slashdot.org/comments.p... & here too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... + here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * :)

    (I've discovered that trying to make peace with a mental retard due to assbergers & OUTISM is a difficult thing & largely apparently unachievable...)

    APK

    P.S.=> You brought it on yourself Coren22, nobody else - you sow the wind? Here comes the whirlwind, & all your sockpuppets, signatures, & fellow trolls can't stop it (lol, you're 'outta bullets' in downmods) - so "the beatings will continue" until you stop your immature childish signature bs... apk

  47. Coren22 gets crushed (& he ran) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Says it all & this link, dismantling him point-by-"so-called 'point'" of his publicly http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

    * :)

    (Coren22, I tried to give you a chance, 3x no less - you're a fool: You mistake mercy for weakness, like cretin brutes in the streets do... you paid the price!)

    APK

    P.S.=> I notice you stopped responding there - "Gosh, golly gee - why's that?" (not) - but I expect you'll TRY some more b.s. as that's all "your kind" (trolls) understand - crap like downmodding my posts or ac troll me!

    (Which you & your sockpuppets OR fellow trolls have here already NOW TELLING OTHERS TO TROLL ME BY UNIDENTIFIABLE AC POSTS http://slashdot.org/comments.p... as I've torn you ALL up 1 by 1 every time as I have yourself above... you did this, to yourself "signature boy")... apk

  48. Re: This assumes they are using radio waves, corre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even that use is decreasing.

  49. Re:This assumes they are using radio waves, correc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at the mentally deficient abnormal retard rain man autism case attempting to communicate with us!