Slashdot Mirror


The Alien Megastructure Around Mysterious 'Tabby's Star' Is Probably Just Dust, Analysis Shows (theguardian.com)

An analysis by more than 200 astronomers has been published that shows the mysterious dimming of star KIC 8462852 -- nicknamed Tabby's star -- is not being produced by an alien megastructure. "The evidence points most strongly to a giant cloud of dust occasionally obscuring the star," reports The Guardian. From the report: KIC 8462852 is approximately 1,500 light years away from the Earth and hit the headlines in October 2015 when data from Nasa's Kepler space telescope showed that it was dimming by unexplainably large amounts. The star's light dropped by 20% first and then 15% making it unique. Even a large planet passing in front of the star would have blocked only about 1% of the light. For an object to block 15-20%, it would have to be approaching half the diameter of the star itself. With this realization, a few astronomers began whispering that such a signal would be the kind expected from a gigantic extraterrestrial construction orbiting in front of the star -- and the idea of the alien megastructure was born.

In the case of Tabby's star, the new observations show that it dims more at blue wavelengths than red. Thus, its light is passing through a dust cloud, not being blocked by an alien megastructure in orbit around the star. The new analysis of KIC 8462852 showing these results is to be published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters. It reinforces the conclusions reached by Huan Meng, University of Arizona, Tucson, and collaborators in October 2017. They monitored the star at multiple wavelengths using Nasa's Spitzer and Swift missions, and the Belgian AstroLAB IRIS observatory. These results were published in The Astrophysical Journal.

75 comments

  1. Maybe... by Zaatxe · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... the alien megastructure was destroyed in an interplanetary war and now it's all debris! I want to believe!!!

    --
    So say we all
    1. Re:Maybe... by Narcocide · · Score: 0

      The war doesn't have to be interplanetary. We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves. Also note that our own solar system's asteroid belt was probably once also a planet.

    2. Re:Maybe... by Zaatxe · · Score: 2

      Our own asteroid belt WAS a planet. And it was destroyed by Xenu. Everyone knows that, duh!

      --
      So say we all
    3. Re:Maybe... by sheramil · · Score: 2

      We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves.

      I'm not sure that we do. Most of the calculations made in that direction relate to the destruction of humanity, or life; I don't think we have enough nukes to shatter the planet into dust. Whatever tech they were using, it was "something pretty damn devastating," as that guard robot in HHGG said.

    4. Re:Maybe... by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or, the structure is designed to capture more energetic radiation at the expense of IR.

      It's always amusing to read authoritative declarations from eminent scientists regarding how a Kardashev Type-II civilization might or might not take care of business.

    5. Re:Maybe... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Informative

      You don't need to even guess; just consider Earth's potential energy. You need about 60 megajoules per kilogram to remove said kilogram of mass from the surface to infinity. Even a megaton nuke only has enough energy to remove less than a megaton of material from Earth. Consequently, we can't even lift a smallish mountain with all the nukes we have.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to even guess; just consider Earth's potential energy. You need about 60 megajoules per kilogram to remove said kilogram of mass from the surface to infinity. Even a megaton nuke only has enough energy to remove less than a megaton of material from Earth. Consequently, we can't even lift a smallish mountain with all the nukes we have.

      You don't need to lift anything. Lifting assumes that you have it leave the current and intact body. If you manage to break the structural integrity of the planet the resulting shards will be ground into even smaller pieces by orbital mechanics. That's more devastating than pushing parts out of the way of the others.

    7. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves.

      No we don't. Not even close. The largest nuclear bomb ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of 2x10^17 J. The gravitational unbinding energy of the Earth is 2x10^32 J. We would need 10^15 - that's 1,000,000,000,000,000 - Tsar Bombas to have the firepower to reduce the Earth to a scattered cloud of dust.

    8. Re:Maybe... by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves.

      Really, are you sure about that? If we detonated every nuke at the same time in the same place we'd probably all die but the planet itself would be pretty much fine.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    9. Re:Maybe... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Nope, not by many orders of magnitude. Estimates of current nuclear weapon stockpiles range from 1500 to 6600 megatons TNT equivalent. The Chicxulub impactor is estimated at 100000 megatons and all that did was drill a hole 180km across and 20km deep and possibly triggered vulcanism on the other side of the planet. It didn't shatter the planet.

      The impactor in the event 3.26 billion years back was a rock between 37km and 58km and that didn't fracture the planet into pieces either.

      If we put all the nukes in a hole 10km down and set them off at once, I doubt we'd even get surface displacement beyond seismic shaking for a couple of seconds.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    10. Re:Maybe... by admin7087 · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is really interesting. Could someone in-the-know provide a rough calculation ... how many nukes do we need to blow up earth into tiny fragments? And how do they need to be positioned?

      I'm asking for a friend.

    11. Re:Maybe... by admin7087 · · Score: 1

      How many do we need?

    12. Re:Maybe... by MrMr · · Score: 2

      You need to increase the distance between all your fragments to create a visible and persistent cloud, so the potential energy requirement is still the same ballpark. Otherwise you can just declare Earth to be a very dense cloud, and claim the total destruction has already happened (again).

    13. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your friend obviously has not heard of the programmer's goto (pun unintentional) site StackOverflow or the other StackExchange sites, else he might have been able to google this post from way back in 2013 :-).

      Captcha=gravely

    14. Re:Maybe... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Orbital mechanics implies orbiting, orbiting implies complying at least with the virial theorem, which only halves your energy requirement compared to removing pieces to infinity. One half of a fucking lot of energy is still a fucking lot of energy.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    15. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You left out the the part where you solidify the molten core of the planet so that it could be broken into shards in the first place.

      Breaking the structural integrity of the planet just creates one or more supercargoes that end all (or almost all) life on the planet. The planet would be all molten and blobby for a while but would eventually cool back down into a solid planet again.

    16. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here, in this thread. You need a million billion of the largest nukes ever built. And that's the absolute minimum, if they're used with perfect efficiency: every erg of energy goes into carefully separating the constituent parts of the earth and pushing them away. If some energy goes into light and radiation, or into pushing the fragments away a bit more forcefully, you need more still.

    17. Re:Maybe... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had to find out what it means, because I didn't know the word:

      A supercargo (from Spanish sobrecargo) is a person employed on board a vessel by the owner of cargo carried on the ship. The duties of a supercargo are defined by admiralty law and include managing the cargo owner's trade, selling the merchandise in ports to which the vessel is sailing, buying and receiving goods to be carried on the return voyage, and ending all or almost all life on the planet.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's even more amusing to hear the religious assertions of nerds about space.

    19. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The blast needed to do that would need to overcome the Earth's binding energy, which is easy to find on the web: about 2x10^32 Joules. The same source says that's equal to around 12 days of the Sun's total energy output (of which Earth receives less than a billionth every day), so that gives you an idea of how difficult it really would be to explode a planet.

    20. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dust can do a lot of things. If you have a spectra you can find a lot of ways to explain it by dust. A lot of the time this is like saying we looked as the colour gradient of a slight blur and found that such a vague smudge could be explained by what we think it might be, the most likely scenario. That in fact is not positive proof. It's merely a failure to disprove that it's dust.

    21. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A planet's gravity will prevent it from blowing apart like, say, Krypton. Nuclear arms can only destroy the ecosphere. Even the very big planet that collided with Earth in the beginning wasn't enough to completely destroy the Earth. Some material was ejected then regrouped back to Earth or contributed to form the Moon.

    22. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A collision orgy in a star system would also do.

    23. Re:Maybe... by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      This is really interesting. Could someone in-the-know provide a rough calculation ... how many nukes do we need to blow up earth into tiny fragments? And how do they need to be positioned?

      I'm asking for a friend.

      Lucky you managed to cover yourself 100% legally with that last sentence.

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

      Either way itâ(TM)s a cover up.

    25. Re:Maybe... by wafflemonger · · Score: 1

      Here is a list of a few ways to disperse the Earth
      https://www.livescience.com/17...

    26. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would your friend happen to be a short, stocky, boastful guy with a few loose screws and a very bad haircut?

    27. Re:Maybe... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I'm not short, you inconsiderate clod!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    28. Re:Maybe... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Many orders of magnitude more.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    29. Re:Maybe... by cstacy · · Score: 1

      This is really interesting. Could someone in-the-know provide a rough calculation ... how many nukes do we need to blow up earth into tiny fragments? And how do they need to be positioned?

      I'm asking for a friend.

      Would your friend happen to be a short, stocky, boastful guy with a few loose screws and a very bad haircut?

      Don't talk about the Emperor like that or you will never get to be his Young Apprentice!

    30. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you manage to break the structural integrity of the planet the resulting shards will be ground into even smaller pieces by orbital mechanics.

      Nope. If you cut the planet in two, and separated the two halves by a few kilometres, they'd just fall together and reform into a planet again. If you want to tear a planet apart and have it *remain* torn apart, you need to throw the pieces of it in different directions with enough speed to escape their gravitational attraction to one another. Which you can calculate from the Earth's gravitational potential energy, as the GP said.

    31. Re: Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or possibly a large art installation by a famous alien artist

    32. Re:Maybe... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And it will leave the Earth intact as a round solid body, just jumbled a bit. Plenty good enough to wipe out humanity, but it wouldn't leave a dust cloud.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    33. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves.

      Uhh, no, we absolutely do not. We could not even put a significant dent in the Earth using every single weapon on the planet. We couldn't even harm the smallest moon in the solar system with everything we've got. Humanity really isn't anywhere near as mighty as you think. You watch too many movies.

    34. Re:Maybe... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      A million!? Wishful thinking. I bet you put like 50, tops, underground, inside fault lines and the planet cracks like an egg.

    35. Re:Maybe... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      People more educated than you said the same thing about Trump becoming president.

    36. Re:Maybe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have gone to school.

  2. David, at it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He released more black goo from the engineers.

  3. Speculator Aliens!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Those bastards found a cheaper way to mine bitcoins!!!

  4. Non-explanation explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    where is this dust coming from? how does eating blue and shitting red prove that something is not a solar panel of some sort? who is stupid enough to believe that aliens would bother with a dyson sphere (impossible to stabilize, even if you have the unobtainium needed to build it), instead of a dyson swarm (cheap, cheerful, eminently scalable microsat swarm)?

    1. Re:Non-explanation explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The expectation with a solar panel would be that a portion of the collected energy is used to do work rather than juts frequency shifting it.

      Presumably what they did here is check the amount of energy being emitted in IR and found that it accounted for the loss of energy in visible spectra. This indicates that none of the energy is being harnessed for work (or more likely there is a difference but its well below what would be expected with our solar panel tech and we're assuming no one who can build a mega structure uses solar panels hat much shittier than ours)

  5. Nano Megastructure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're so screwed. Aliens are so advanced they build megastructures of nanobots. We can't even tell them from dust until it's too late.

  6. blasted by God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what happens to a planet if there is too much homosexual activity

    1. Re:blasted by God by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The cloud absorbs red, not pink. It's about as un-fabulous as it gets.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. So what has changed? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I don't recall (other than some over zealous news sites) when it was probably aliens.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  8. Occams razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    already told us that.

  9. Blue by lessthan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or maybe they really like the color blue? Perhaps we've found the home system of the Blue Man Group, where they have a blue house with a blue window. Blue is the color of all that they wear. Blue are the streets and all the trees are too. They have a girlfriend and she is so blue. Blue are the people there that walk around. Blue like their Corvette, it's in and outside. Blue are the words they say and what they think. Blue are the feelings that live inside them.

    --
    Space Shuttle was a program that strapped humans to an explosion and tried to stab through the sky with fire and math
    1. Re:Blue by McFortner · · Score: 1

      Boy, the thought of that really has me feeling blue.

      --
      Beware of Sales Reps bearing gifts.
  10. No no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That cloud looks like an ele-u-phunt to me!

  11. Maybe not by Excelcia · · Score: 1

    We don't know that it's dust. We don't know that it's not an alien megastructure. All we know is that the absorption is not inconsistent with dust and that occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is generally the best. However, what we don't know about exosystems far exceeds what we do know. Which seems to mean that the simplest explanation (certainly the most prudent) is to say we don't yet know enough to make more than wild conjecture (and at this point even dust is wild conjecture).

  12. that calculation is somewhere on the web by aepervius · · Score: 1

    I read it years ago, it was fun, but I have no lust to google it for you. Go for it champ :).

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  13. Dust...or debris?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it dust, or could it be the remains of a shattered Dyson Sphere??

    The alien mega-structure theory lives!!!

    1. Re:Dust...or debris?? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      It's not the remains of a shattered Dyson Sphere, you idiot.

      It's the remains of a shattered Xarklatagr-oneak* Sphere.

      * Sorry, it doesn't translate very well into our alphabet.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  14. DUH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been saying that since the beginning of the debate. It's likely just a star with a ring around it like Saturn has.

  15. It's what aliens want us to think. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the creatures owning that structure want us to think. "Xarax, have you heard? Earthlings are investigating our power grid! We need to take action immediately! Activate dust camouflage, now!"

  16. Doesn't add up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The cloud was most possibly produced by the collision of two comets or the break-up of a single one."

    To block out such a huge amount of the light I don't see this being likely with a comet. Not for a 15% dip in light. The comets would have to be quite very large.

  17. Too bad by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    :(

  18. LOL the Left!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another disappointment...

  19. Well I for one ... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    Well I for one welcome our new alien dust cloud overlords!

  20. Just as well by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    If it had been real Trump would have ordered a biglier one

  21. Occam's Butterknife by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Sometimes, looking for the simplest answer forces you to make up some BS. Remember when UFOs were "swamp gas"?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Occam's Butterknife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that swamp gas is real, luminous (combusted methane) and has been reported many times as ghosts, UFOs, and such, right?

      Sometimes a fervent desire forces you to ignore simple answers for a really, really complex and unfounded one too.

    2. Re:Occam's Butterknife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember when UFOs were "swamp gas"?

      Yeah, they still are.

  22. So where does by pjv936 · · Score: 1

    this dust cloud comes from and how is it maintaining its form. And why don't we see similar dust clouds else where. BTW, a dust cloud can also be an alien megastructure.

  23. Re:Maybe...NO we can't blow up the Earth with nuke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have enough firepower to do that to this planet all by ourselves.

    Really, are you sure about that? If we detonated every nuke at the same time in the same place we'd probably all die but the planet itself would be pretty much fine.

    We do not have enough nukes on this planet to crack the crust, destroy the planet's integrity, and literally crack the planet apart. Much less blast enormous quarter-planet sized chunks into space and escape the gravity of the planet. Yes we can kill all humans (at least those above ground) with our nukes - maybe just 1000 or less, but the entire world's arsenal will just scour the top level of crust at best. We do not have a Death Star capability or anywhere close!

  24. Wrong by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

    The alien megastructure is made of a nano-fabricated material that we would call "coloured glass" if we ever saw it.

    That's why it dims more at blue wavelengths than red.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  25. It's dust NOW... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    All OUR structures were once dust, too, and will one day be dust again.

    But most dust has never been part of a structure, and probably never will be.

    1. Re:It's dust NOW... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      Most dust is skin flakes and mite poop, and therefore has DEFINITELY been part of a structure at some point.

    2. Re:It's dust NOW... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Most dust is skin flakes and mite poop, and therefore has DEFINITELY been part of a structure at some point.

      Interplanetary dust? Citation needed, I think.

      Even if you're confining yourself to household dust (obviously not the topic of my comment), you're still way off base. For starters, two-thirds of it is typically stuff tracked in from outdoors.

      But I suppose if you say that "supernova poop" "has been part of a structure at some point", then you're technically correct...

    3. Re:It's dust NOW... by JoeDuncan · · Score: 1

      For starters, two-thirds of it is typically stuff tracked in from outdoors.

      I live in Canada. Like all civilized cultures, we take our shoes off indoors.

    4. Re:It's dust NOW... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure you'd need to take them off outdoors to avoid getting the outdoor stuff into the house...

  26. OR.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or so the alien overlords would have us believe!

  27. Disastertron Multi-Tool! HA HA by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    This more closely fits the profile of an alien megastructure engineered to resemble dust.
    Only aliens with incredibly biggest technology manage to build megastructure.
    Other aliens may even attain such skill as to to cloak one convincingly as dust.
    What are the chances that two such civilizations would be in same place same time?
    Why bother to make it resemble dust if those such as we saw megastructure first?
    If we see through ruse so easily they cannot be smart enough to fool dumb people.
    It's like the fox in the henhouse shouting 'No one here but us chickens!'
    not fooling anyone because they know chickens cannot talk.
    It was just dust why would scientists spend all this extra time performing an analysis.
    That dust over here? No analysis. Over there? No analysis.
    Vacuum cleaner bag burst in yo face. No analysis. This? Analysis. Suspicious.
    Maybe even smart enough to build megastructure out of dust. What else to use?
    Laughter?? Space contain only dark laughter and antilaughter which annihilate the joke.
    Maybe is practical joke to make scientists look while picking pocket or stealing their women
    Isn't it funny how cartoons have eyes at end of telescope, eyes that blink
    Why dust and not Barbie Doll heads. Can science resolve Barbie Dool head this distance?
    So many unanswered questions.

    Has anyone checked to see if there is dust in the lens?

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>