Does it make sense to build new radio telescopes?

[PeterDonis]

I read that there are ideas to build a radio telescope on the far side of the Moon. There will be no anthropogenic noise there.

Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?

 

[fresh_42]

Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?

Someone should have informed the Chinese before they built the world's largest radio telescope and spent half a billion dollars on relocations and construction. And I bet it is as overbooked as any telescope we have.

 

[Cerenkov]

Replying to the questions put to you doesn't seem to be your forte, does it Line_112?

I put four to you and you respond to just one. A success rate of just 25%.


Why would you predicate your argument on such an average? Could you please explain your reasoning and how you arrive at the conclusion of there being (on average) no more than one radio-emitting civilization in the Milky Way.

Could you then explain your reasoning for applying that average to other galaxies, seeing that most of the members of the Local Group, besides M31 and M33, are not spiral galaxies.

Please cite a source for your claim that the ISM/IGM strongly distort radio waves.

Also, please explain what you mean by banal radio bursts.


So now everyone here knows what you meant by banal radio bursts. FRB's.

But we are all still in the dark as why you think there is on average just one radio-emitting civilization per galaxy. What kind of average is this? Mean, mode or median ? And an average of what exactly?

Nor do we know, out of the galaxies of the Local Group which you consider as viable hosts for intelligent life. Spiral, elliptical, irregular or dwarf? They are not all the same. Therefore, when you talk of a neighbouring galaxy we have no idea which galaxy in the Local Group you mean and why.

Lastly, your claim that the ISM/IGM strongly distorts radio waves remains unsupported. No source cited, no link given, nothing.

I'm not a dentist, but getting answers out of you is like pulling teeth.

Please rectify this.


Cerenkov.

 

[Line_112]

Yes, that would be another logical step. But you seemed to be skeptical that radio astronomy would continue to advance--but now you're saying it will. Which is it?

Rather, to increasing the power of telescopes than to change their location. On Earth, is greatly hampered by terrestrial interference, and it is always very unpleasant when a suspicious signal is first reported, and then official scientists refute it. A telescope on the far side of the Moon would reduce the number of such tricky cases, and the probability that the caught suspicious signal is connected precisely with an alien civilization would be much higher. As well as the probability of detecting such signals (the less noise, the lower the risk of missing or misinterpret). So there really are reasons for such a format of searches.

 

[fresh_42]

If you were right, then why are the observation times on our existing telescopes notoriously overbooked?

Preliminary results after closing the Cycle 10 Call for Proposals (CfP) shows continued strong demand for ALMA time. The community submitted 1680 proposals. Although this is a slight decrease from the most recent cycles, the amount of time requested on the 12-m array increased to over 29,000 hours, which is the most time ever requested in a single cycle. This implies an overall oversubscription rate of 6.9 on the 12-meter array. The amount of time requested on the 7-m and Total Power arrays also remains very robust, with approximately 15,000 hours requested on each array.

Source: ALMA

Certainly not for searching for aliens. I strongly agree with @Bandersnatch (post #24) that the alien civilization aspect is mainly a bait for the public to get interested in the subject. I dare to claim that you wouldn't be granted any observation time on any existing radio telescope if the goal of your project were to detect aliens.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

I think it is lucky for RA that it is not your call.

Yes, but it is still worrying that more and more people responsible for this type of decisions think the same nowadays.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

They do not affect our salaries and pensions in any way, and since they are considered natural objects, there is even less sense in studying them.

Basic research is founded on the basis of advancing knowledge, not with necessarily achieving a particular goal. History has taught us that societies that employ this attitude advance technologically, and those that don't stagnate or fail. This is because advances in knowledge often lead to unanticipated advances in technology.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

it is always very unpleasant when a suspicious signal is first reported, and then official scientists refute it.

Yes, those official scientists always try to refute everything.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Yes, those official scientists always try to refute everything.

There's no such thing as an official scientist.

Scientists put forth new theories and experiments. They don't always try to refute everything. They do try to refute some things. Sometimes they are successful and things get refuted. Sometimes they are unsuccessful and things get advanced. This is a centuries-old process that advances society. Without it, for example, this platform for our discussions would not exist.

 

[Jaime Rudas]

There's no such thing as an official scientist.

Yes, maybe I didn't clarify that this was a sarcastic response.

 

[Herman Trivilino]

Yes, maybe I didn't clarify that this was a sarcastic response.

Oh ... sorry about that.

 

[PeterDonis]

Rather, to increasing the power of telescopes than to change their location

I don't understand. Changing location--to space or on the Moon--does increase the resolving power available. You've explained why yourself. So I don't understand why you're separating the two.

 

[Line_112]

I focused on another aspect. That even if the telescope's sensitivity is the same as that of a ground-based one, there will be less risk of getting erroneous results - mistaking anthropogenic radio emission for alien and vice versa. It seems quite probable to me that many alien signals could be missed or misinterpreted, being mixed with earthly radio interference. That is, the quality of the information suffers.

 

[PeterDonis]

I focused on another aspect.

I still don't understand. You're describing ways in which the accuracy of detection could be improved. That would involve continuing this line of research. But you've said you don't think it should be continued. Which is it?

 

[Line_112]

I still don't understand. You're describing ways in which the accuracy of detection could be improved. That would involve continuing this line of research. But you've said you don't think it should be continued. Which is it?

I am not against continuing the research of extraterrestrial signals. I am against using increasingly powerful telescopes for this. That is, so that the detection radius does not increase.

 

[Frimus]

Ouch, can this thread offer anything else besides endless musing?

 

[PeterDonis]

I am not against continuing the research of extraterrestrial signals. I am against using increasingly powerful telescopes for this

Then it probably wasn't a good idea for you to describe explicitly in this thread how to do that. (Not that I think the radio astronomy community needs to be told--but as has already been pointed out, that community has far bigger fish to fry than searching for alien signals, and improvements in detection will be aimed at those other things, and any improvement in detection of possible alien signals will be a small side effect.)

At any rate, this thread seems to have run its course and is now closed.