The Absolute, Definitive Truth About Alien Megastructures

The title of this post is a joke, or taken literally, an outright lie. The only definitive truth is that no one knows if anyone has ever built a megastructure, or even if they would if they could. I have persistent doubts if such things exist anywhere in the universe, but I can't yet tell you if such doubts are reasonable.

Update 8 December 2016: I left out one type of motivation for building a megastructure - planetary climate control. Although these "Dyson Dots" would be relatively small, they might be detectable for transiting planets. I need to run the numbers...

The Usual Disclaimer

So, we're going to be speculative here yet again, and very probably wrong. I won't be able to cite many facts, so if that is the sort of thing you like to read, perhaps now would be a good time to hit the back button.

But I'm Completely Serious

We are interested in the conjectured alien megastructures because we might have a chance to observe them with technology we have or could well have in the near future. These structures would be bigger than planets (my definition), and since we can observe planets about other stars, we might well be able to observe these things, and so looking for them is a kind of SETI. I've written before about why I think SETI is worthwhile.

Updates to the Century-Long Dimming of Tabby's Star

In the main post on Tabby's Star, I brought up the subject of Bradley Schaefer's contention that Tabby's Star is slowly dimming over the course of a century or so, primarily based upon his analysis of the Harvard library of photographic plates. Not everyone agreed with this, but for different reasons. This post is to absorb updates to this story, at least for a while

Just to be clear, the initial findings of Boyajian, et. al. concerning the star are based upon the Kepler data, some previous surveys, and follow-up observations, and are not affected by this controversy. It may be an additional piece to the puzzle, but ti may also turn out that Schaefer is wrong. Of course, what we don't know is what happened before the plate library started in 1890, and we have limited information since 1989. If Tabby's Star has in fact been dimming, we don't know how long it has been going on.

What Schaefer did was to look at both the digitized library and his own estimates of the star's brightness (in a standard band called Johnson B) directly from the plates, using known comparison stars on each plate. He found it necessary to reject a certain subset of plates he found unreliable. He fit both sets of data to a straight line, as well as data for certain "check stars" nearby with  similar color. He found that the brightness of the check stars had not changed over the 20th Century, but that Tabby's star had.

Astronomical brightness is measured on a logarithmic scale, with dimmer stars having a higher magnitude. An easy way to remember it is that a star 100 times dimmer will have a magnitude difference of 5. That is, if one star is magnitude 7, then a magnitude 12 star is 100 times dimmer. So, one or two tenths of a magnitude is a noticeable dimming. Vega, a bright star in the Summer Triangle, is almost zero magnitude, and probably the dimmest star you can see with the naked eye would be Magnitude 6. Astronomers use particular filters to measure brightness, and in the standard "Johnson B" filter, Tabby's Star is is in the neighborhood of 12.2. That makes it pretty dim, but that is because of its distance, almost 1500 light years away. Vega, on the other hand, is quite close as stars go at just about 25 light years away.  Tabby's star is actually about 4 times brighter than the Sun.

When Schaefer studied the B magnitude for Tabby's Star, we concluded that it was dimming relative to his check stars. There is no way that a star like this - a so-called "main sequence" star should exhibit large variations in brightness over such a time period - no one knows of any other exceptions, and some well-validated models tell us that is what we should expect.

So, is Schaefer right? One of the criticisms of his work is that he used measurements from DASCH that may have issues - the so-called "flagged" measurements. The reasons a measurement might be flagged vary. Schaefer rejected many of these, but not others.

Let's look at the DASCH light curve for Tabby's Star using the unflagged points only. One you notice right away is that the unflagged points are a small minority of all points. Anyway, here it is:

 

Tabby's Star (KIC 8462852), unflagged measurements only, Kepler Calibration

While the curve looks fairly flat, I get that it does show an average decline similar to Schaefer's result. Note that "Menzel gap" starting in the 1950s, during the period when Harvard was not collecting plates because the funding was directed to other projects. The points on the right of the gap are mostly below the average, and the points to the left tend to be above it a bit, but we don't need much dimming to have a real anomaly on our hands. On top of this, B2015 report a recent B magnitude observation (presumably about 2014, but no date is given) of 12.26, which is well below the line.

Schaefer's check stars don't appear to show this trend when using only unflagged points. In hisl atest preprint in April 2016, he changes the check stars to improve their closeness to Tabby's star both in color, magnitude, and proximity, but the conclusion is the same - Tabby's star varies more than the check stars.

If you look in Table 2 of Schaefer's paper, you will note that he finds that the B magnitude near the end of the 19th century was about 12.265. That is much brighter than the more recent 1987 magnitude of 12.458 - roughly 20%.

The American Association of Variable Star Observers, has been keeping an eye on Tabby's Star since Boyajian, et. al. came out in the fall of 2015.  here is what they have seen so far (early May of 2016):

The B magnitudes they are seeing are about 12.4 - consistent with Schaefer, but a bit above his trend line. There are subtleties here that are a bit tricky. For example, the bluish-white Tabby's Star is far enough away that there is measurable reddening of its light by the interstellar medium, and I'm not sure this is accounted for in the same way in all systems. 

The AAVSO plots don't show the error bars, and we have a data gap of almost 30 years. Is it possible the star's brightness levelled off in the 1980s and hasn't dimmed all, and maybe even brightened slightly since then? We may never know, but by taking more data, we can monitor longer and longer term behavior.

As noted in the last Wow! Signal episode, it's now time for the photometry experts to compare notes and hammer out a consensus on this issue. Is there compelling evidence that Tabby's Star is dimming? I think so, but I could wrong - there's a first time for everything.

The Long Delay Echoes

The subject here is a scientific mystery that was well documented by European scientists in the 1920s and 1930s, well before any man made objects were launched into outer space, and then was largely forgotten. The phenomenon has since apparently disappeared, although anecdotal reports still pop up from time to time, and a low level of interest persists. We are discussing it here, because although no one knows for sure what caused the Long Delay Echoes, one plausible explanation is Bracewell Probes. The Long Delay Echoes (LDEs) just possibly might be a clue to how to find such a probe.

Some Basic Background You may Wish to Skip

 I'm sure you know that radio waves generally travel at the speed of light, and can be bounced off of various surfaces and also off the Earth's ionosphere if the radio wavelength is long enough. The speed of radio waves can be a bit slower if they are traveling through a medium such as a plasma or water, but generally the speed is not much less than the 300,000 kilometers per second we are used to. That means, if we send a radio signal out, and see it come back to us, then to calculate the distance to the reflector, we divide the time delay in seconds by 2 (since it went out and back), and then multiply by 300,000 kilometers per second to get the distance. Then, if we send out a radio signal and it comes back 2 seconds later, it must have traveled 300,000 km each way, or most of the way to the Moon. Amateur radio operators often enjoy bouncing their signals off the moon, which generally exhibits a very weak echo delayed about 2 and one half seconds. Strong echoes, or echoes delayed longer than 2.5 seconds, are not moon echoes.

Since the 1960s, there are many radio repeaters in Geosynchronous orbit, but the round trip delay is much shorter than the moon -  less than half a second, and you generally won't see a satellite echo at all unless your signal parameters are just right - and probably illegal.

Audio version of Bracewell Probes part 1 and 2.

I didn't just translate my Bracewell Probe posts to audio for the Wow! Signal Podcast, but I also improved and expanded upon them.  Also with cool music.

http://www.wowsignalpodcast.com/2013/03/episode-5-superior-galactic-communities.html

The Fermi Paradox - Part 1

This post is intended for those unfamiliar with the Fermi paradox. If you've already read a thing or two about it, I invite you to skip this one and wait until Part 2.

This is a companion post to Episode 2 of the Wow! Signal Podcast.  You can go over there and get the audio version with cool music.

For the purpose of this post, we are going to take as a given the null hypothesis about alien visitors to Earth - that this has never happened.  This is what the controversial astrophysicist Michael Hart called Fact A.

It turns out that accepting Fact A presents an interesting dilemma; first recognized by the distinguished physicist Enrico Fermi in 1950.  The unsolved problem is, that we would expect alien visitors on our planet, given a set of very reasonable assumptions. It’s really not such an extraordinary claim, after all. Assuming Fact A, this presents us with a puzzle. Either one or more assumptions have to go, or something really weird is going on.

Douglas Adams once famously wrote:

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

But space is also hugely old The entire history of Homo Sapiens is only about one twenty-thousandth the age of the Earth, and the age of the Earth is less than a third the age of the universe. What would seem to be likely is that at least local to our galaxy, time eventually overwhelms space with respect to galactic colonization.

Searching for Bracewell Probes - part 1

Ronald Bracewell

Bracewell Probes were first discussed by Ronald Bracewell in a 1960 Nature paper. The basic idea is send robotic probes to solar systems that seemed promising, and these probes would sit and wait for millenia looking for signs of intelligent life in those systems, and should those intelligent creatures ever reach a certain measure of sophistication, then either radio home for instructions, or simply provide a library of advanced knowledge that would help these lowly beings achieve a kind of galactic citizenship.
that the "Superior Communities" would

Bracewell Probes still seem like a sensible way for superior communities to reach out in their galactic neighborhoods, whether their intentions are benign or defensive. Rather than guessing when to send probes to check out a suspect solar system, they simply strike out for all of them in the neighborhood, and then wait. Would their purpose be, as Bracewell conjectured, to enlighten us, or simply to alert the rest of the superior community that here there be uppity apes?

Speculation - the only way to fly

Ronald Bracewell

Here is another speculation, but probably not very original. In fact, it's a variation on the 1960 concept of a Bracewell Probe.  It's hard for me to imagine that some science fiction author or another hasn't treated this in some form.

In the future, we expect to be able solve these three broad classes of technological problem we haven't got a a handle on yet:

1. Very large sensors that can remotely sense distant planets accurately enough to ascertain their habitability with a high confidence.
2. The hosting of a human mind on a machine substrate - i.e. a truly intelligent machine.  This implies that the state of a human mind could be captured - "uploaded" onto a machine and captured in a data set. In other words, we could completely define what we now call the "self" in terms of data.  The crucial thing here (within an order of magnitude or so), is how much data.  Let's say it's about an exabit compressed, or  10^18 bits.  Some estimates are lower that, but I think we need lots of margin.  
3. Travel across interstellar distance, although the problems of doing so quickly ( a significant fraction of the speed of light and exploiting time dilation effects) may prove to be insurmountable no matter how sophisticated our technology is, and at present we have only the broadest concept of how to cheat the speed of light limit.

Let's assume we could do both 1 and 2, but item 3 could only be done slowly, so that it takes hundreds or even many thousands of years to travel between the stars.  This would be a hopelessly tedious journey for a human or superhuman intelligence, and all the mass required for reliable life support would only slow it down and limit options for deacceleration.

So, we would want to send only a small mass to another star system and it would take a long time and cost a lot of energy.   However, we can transmit information far more cheaply and at the speed of light.  You might need a really big and powerful transmitting array, but this is just scaling up from current technology.  To transmit an exabit in a year you would need a transmission rate of about 30 gigabits per second -  well within plausibility, even over interstellar distances.  The size of the receiving antenna you would need on the other side would increase with the distance (roughly 100 meters on a side at 100 light years, given plausible assumptions about  the transmitter, noise temperature and losses), but such antennas can be made from gossamer materials that can be folded compactly.

What's not wrong with the ETH

Gort is not pleased with us

OK, I just got through slamming the ETH to the deck, and I have it in a sleeper hold, waiting for it to go limp.  Why would I defend it?

Recall that my main problem with the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis (ETH) is the "Hypothesis" part.  It's not so much the answers it offers, but that it fails to ask useful questions that we can answer with real data.  However, I feel that I must also address some the attacks the ETH has unjustly suffered, as well as some of the false distinctions it is included in.