Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mysterious signals from 1000 light years away
The New Scientist ^ | 19:00 01 September 04 | Eugenie Samuel Reich

Posted on 09/01/2004 2:36:56 PM PDT by longshadow

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: PatrickHenry; longshadow; Physicist

bttt. Sorry I have been off the air.


61 posted on 09/02/2004 7:11:30 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: longshadow


"Hey Glork!...Has anybody answered yet?"...
62 posted on 09/02/2004 7:21:37 AM PDT by Dallas59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Physicist; longshadow
There are plenty of natural ways to make a narrowband EM emission, such as a hydrogen spectral line, as is the case here.

Unless I am completely out of the loop, the narrowest band natural masers are about 300 Hz. SETI is looking around .1 to 8 Hz range depending on the search.

63 posted on 09/02/2004 7:34:44 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
Have you seen Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos? It comes highly recommended. He has a few choice biographical notes on physicists such as that Newton sent over 100 to the gallows for counterfeiting.
64 posted on 09/02/2004 9:19:41 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; All
Please be aware that overnight, the head dude of SETI@Home disowned this report while on the what was formerly known as the the "Art Bell" overnight Freak Show. Basically, the reporter screwed this up and got carried away.

It's just one of a number of curious signals (or anomalies) that they are going to check out someday. Nothing more, nothing less.

65 posted on 09/02/2004 9:50:54 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The Seti@home page for that candidate signal:

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/Candidates/SHGb02+14a/SHGb02+14a.html

http://tinyurl.com/4wthz
66 posted on 09/02/2004 10:03:23 AM PDT by M. Dodge Thomas (More of the same, only with more zeros on the end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

here's a thread discussing the SETI@Home guy debunking this original story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1205758/posts


67 posted on 09/02/2004 10:04:03 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; Physicist; RightWhale; longshadow
If the array was inclined to scan that area of the sky at different times of the day, wouldn't any physical defect in the array be unlikely to exist at multiple locations on the dish and produce the same effect? Wouldn't this also rule out satellite sources, since the specific signal is seen in only one place in the sky (unless geosynchronous)?

I can easily understand why the SETI folks would be trying to ease back expectations, even if they thought they had something. Professional pride and all that.

LTS

68 posted on 09/02/2004 11:32:25 AM PDT by Liberty Tree Surgeon (Buy American, the Nation you save may be your own)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
The fact that the signal continues to drift after this correction is “fishy”, he says. “If [the aliens] are so smart, they’ll adjust their signal for their planet’s motion.”

I don't know how one would correct for the planets motion unless one knew the direction to the receiver. They'd have to know they were beaming the signal in the direction of the solar system. Which they might, if their transmitting antenna was anything like the Arecibo dish that we receive on. But the signal might be omni directionaly and not a deliberate attempt at communications. Which is kind of scary, because it implies even more transmitter power than a "beamed" signal would have. OTOH, it could be coming from much closer, from something we can't see. Natural event still seems most probable explaination. But that's not bad either, we'll learn something new.

Wonder whose PC was the one to find the signal? :)

69 posted on 09/02/2004 11:38:07 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boundless
Imagine Marconi intercepting a CDMA cell phone signal in 1920 (heck, even a simple FM signal) on his primitive AM gear. It would have been gibberish. Increasingly, the stuff we send looks more and more like noise.

But, if the signal was strong enough, he'd know there was a signal there. He might have figured out the FM pretty quickly, the CDMA would have been beyond his capability to analyze. If there is modulation on the signal, you might be able to decode it, but today you could tell it was there.

I suspect that the real problem is that, as you hint, that advanced civilizations won't be using radio frequencies for long distance communications. Much more bandwidth available up higher in the spectrum for space to space communications or relay.

70 posted on 09/02/2004 11:48:28 AM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: anobjectivist
The 8 to 37 Hz / second is the rate of change of the frequency not the change itself. I misread that at first as well. Thus the 37 Hz/sec represents an accelleration along the line of sight of 7.8 m/sec/sec. or just over 3/4 of a "g". and the 8 Hz/sec represents about 1.7 m/sec/sec.

Since the signal has only been observed for a few minutes, there's not enough information to determine rotation rate or orbital period of a planet, assuming the thing was even on a planet. If it were in space, there would only be it's orbital motion, which could include the orbit around a planet if it's orbiting a planet, the orbit of the planet (or it) around the star, and the motion of the star around the galaxcy to take into account.

71 posted on 09/02/2004 12:29:21 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Tree Surgeon
If the array was inclined to scan that area of the sky at different times of the day, wouldn't any physical defect in the array be unlikely to exist at multiple locations on the dish and produce the same effect? Wouldn't this also rule out satellite sources, since the specific signal is seen in only one place in the sky (unless geosynchronous)?

I don't have enough data to answer the first part of your question, however, you can pretty much tell if it is a satellite (by analyzing the signal) and especially one that is geostationary (since it is fixed relative to the Earth).

72 posted on 09/03/2004 4:39:59 AM PDT by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Nah . . it's a cookbook . . .


73 posted on 09/03/2004 2:48:51 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Putting gravity to work, eh?


74 posted on 09/03/2004 2:50:07 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Gravity is an illusion.

A lot of things are an illusion today.

75 posted on 09/03/2004 3:01:15 PM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Okay - but I suspect the illusion kinda fooled the fellows being dropped throught the gallows trap door.


76 posted on 09/03/2004 4:20:40 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: longshadow; ValerieUSA; blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach
SHGb02+14a seems to be coming from a point between the constellations Pisces and Aries, where there is no obvious star or planetary system within 1000 light years. And the transmission is very weak...

There are other oddities. For instance, the signal’s frequency is drifting by between eight to 37 hertz per second. “The signal is moving rapidly in frequency and you would expect that to happen if you are looking at a transmitter on a planet that’s rotating very rapidly and where the civilisation is not correcting the transmission for the motion of the planet,” Korpela says.

This does not, however, convince Paul Horowitz, a Harvard University astronomer who looks for alien signals using optical telescopes. He points out that the SETI@home software corrects for any drift in frequency.
Sounds like a moving point source, IOW, a spacecraft, sent out from one star system and headed for another, e.g. a robotic probe. Figuring out what kind of telemetry is being sent back might be impossible, even if this is correct.

77 posted on 09/08/2004 10:07:21 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
see post #67 for a link to the thread in which the SETI@Home head nerd debunks this story.

Much ado about nothing, because some reporter who didn't know what they were taling about jumped the gun.

78 posted on 09/08/2004 12:27:16 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
It wasn't a debunking, merely another point of view. :')
79 posted on 09/08/2004 12:35:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Unlike some people, I have a profile. Okay, maybe it's a little large...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson