B How good are our ears? (Detectable Interstellar signals)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the sensitivity of radio telescopes, often referred to as "ears," in detecting signals from advanced civilizations in our galaxy. The effectiveness of these instruments depends on the strength and proximity of the transmitted signals, with historical benchmarks like the Arecibo signal serving as reference points for detectability. The conversation highlights that the power of radio telescopes may be more critical than the inherent capabilities of the detection systems themselves. Additionally, recent initiatives like the "A Beacon in the Galaxy" mission from the Chinese FAST radio telescope aim to enhance our outreach to potential extraterrestrial intelligences. Overall, the dialogue emphasizes the need for advanced technology to improve our chances of detecting interstellar signals.
Canada Bob
Messages
20
Reaction score
2
TL;DR Summary
Detectable Interstellar signals...
How good are our ears / what can SETI and the like detect ?

If we are listening for a radio signal broadcast by some advanced civilisation in our galaxy how sensitive would our "ears" have to be to detect a signal ? Obviously part of that equation would be how strong and how close the transmitter was, is there a physical limit to the strength of a generated signal that could be broadcast, if so how close would we need to be to detect the signal.

If memory serves me well the loudest signal ever broadcast from Earth was 1000 kW from Arecibo, almost 50 years ago, at what point would that signal become "practically" undetectable ? Can we reasonably deduce that since no one has returned the call that there's no technologically advanced civilsation within 20 light years from Earth ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Isn't it more a question of how powerful our radio telescopes are, than how good our ears are?
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
PeroK said:
Isn't it more a question of how powerful our radio telescopes are, than how good our ears are?
I think the OP was anthropomorphizing the radio telescopes as "ears."
 
  • Like
Likes pbuk
Mark44 said:
I think the OP was anthropomorphizing the radio telescopes as "ears."
Given that it's our eyes that detect electromagnetic radiation, perhaps "eyes" would have been more appropriate.
 
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
Canada Bob said:
Obviously part of that equation would be how strong and how close the transmitter was
Which is why Seti is much more sensitive to radar than radio.
 
PeroK said:
Isn't it more a question of how powerful our radio telescopes are, than how good our ears are?
Powerful ? do you mean sensitive ?
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
Back
Top