KIC 8462852 (dipping again in March 2018)

  • A
  • Thread starter craigi
  • Start date
In summary: KIC 8462852 is a star that has been exhibiting strange dips in brightness, which some are suggesting could be due to an alien presence.
  • #1
craigi
615
36
There doesn't seem to be a thread about this, but it's very popular in the news today. I thought it'd be good to have a place to discuss it here.
 
  • Like
Likes Borg
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
KIC 8462852.

8f399a18a919d56ca41455a22f23a8a1.jpg
 
  • Like
Likes CalcNerd, Grim Arrow, BiGyElLoWhAt and 4 others
  • #3
Some really intriguing light curves here. Read the article for some explanation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ge_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html

star_alien_dips.png


Look at the smooth curve lower left. That has got to be a single body transit. Multiple bodies couldn't make such a smooth curve. Yet that body results in a 15% drop in the light curve!
And it's cold, so not a companion star.

I don't see how exo-comet fragments can explain this.

Black dwarf? :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Artribution
  • #4
Can we be sure that the obstructing bodies are local to KIC 8462852's system? Are they known to be in orbit around KIC 8462852?
Perhaps they appear so large because they may be a group of stray asteroids which are much closer to us than we think, and not in fact in orbit.
 
  • Like
Likes BiGyElLoWhAt and RealTwistedTwin
  • #5
That's been considered, yes.
The problem is, the farther from the star the more incredibly unlikely that they would line up and stayed lined up.
 
  • #6
DaveC426913 said:
That's been considered, yes.
The problem is, the farther from the star the more incredibly unlikely that they would line up and stayed lined up.

DaveC426913 said:
Some really intriguing light curves here. Read the article for some explanation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ge_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html

star_alien_dips.png


Look at the smooth curve lower left. That has got to be a single body transit. Multiple bodies couldn't make such a smooth curve. Yet that body results in a 15% drop in the light curve!
And it's cold, so not a companion star.

I don't see how exo-comet fragments can explain this.

Black dwarf? :smile:
The universe isn't old enough for black dwarfs, they would still be brown dwarfs radiating mad infrared at least.
 
  • #8
Borg said:
Shouldn't a part of Dyson Sphere be a bit closer thus obscure its star in more regular and frequent pattern?
Those aliens really do a shoddy work and park their panels on wrong orbits. Next time, when they arrive to make crop circles someone would have to explain that to them ;)

EDIT: Media are delighted because right now no explanation is really convincing, but this "alien did it" part is also not so good.

Personally I'd opt for some collision stuff, planets with rings and selection bias.
 
  • #9
It's not out of the question that the star itself is variable. It doesn't fit any known categories, but in 1994 neither did Gamma Doradus. (Now it's in the category of "Gamma Doradus variables".)
 
  • Like
Likes JMz and mheslep
  • #10
Czcibor said:
...
EDIT: Media are delighted because right now no explanation is really convincing, but this "alien did it" part is also not so good.

This is another case where IMO it takes 'Two to Tango'. Someone with book on Aliens sees the KIC 8462852 paper, makes a juicy line and calls a media friend to push it. The media person calls the author of the original paper and pushes them for an Alien connection that they probably laugh at and say sure that's, possible.

Next stop, Dyson Sphere and Time Ships.
 
  • #11
Czcibor said:
Shouldn't a part of Dyson Sphere be a bit closer thus obscure its star in more regular and frequent pattern?
Those aliens really do a shoddy work and park their panels on wrong orbits.

Aliens: Thank you, Earth ape. We'd love to have a look at one of your designs.
 
  • Like
Likes Ratman, Grim Arrow, Drakkith and 1 other person
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Some really intriguing light curves here. Read the article for some explanation.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ge_dips_in_brightness_are_a_bit_baffling.html

star_alien_dips.png


Look at the smooth curve lower left. That has got to be a single body transit. Multiple bodies couldn't make such a smooth curve. Yet that body results in a 15% drop in the light curve!
And it's cold, so not a companion star.

I don't see how exo-comet fragments can explain this.

Black dwarf? :smile:
That lightcurve looks very similar (except for it's magnitude) to the one produced by KIC12557548, which is discussed in this Scientific American blog from May 2012. They also give a possible explanation.
 
  • Like
Likes Artribution
  • #13
TurtleMeister said:
That lightcurve looks very similar (except for it's magnitude) to the one produced by KIC12557548, which is discussed in this Scientific American blog from May 2012.

Same group too.
 
  • #14
inuk2600 said:
The universe isn't old enough for black dwarfs, they would still be brown dwarfs radiating mad infrared at least.
I know. Looking for plausible explanations.
 
  • #15
Once we blow through all the alien jokes, maybe we can talk serious. :wink:
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
I know. Looking for plausible explanations.

It was new to me, I had to wiki it. Any new ideas bubbling up out there?
 
  • #17
Here it is, captured @ 85/2, 1 hr integration time, 300% magnification:

KIC%208462852_zps3dguzl5u.jpg
 
  • #18
inuk2600 said:
It was new to me, I had to wiki it. Any new ideas bubbling up out there?
Here's a new idea from 1957:

220px-THBLCKCLDH1957.jpg
 
  • #19
Andy Resnick said:
Here it is, captured @ 85/2, 1 hr integration time, 300% magnification:

KIC%208462852_zps3dguzl5u.jpg

I KNEW it!
Look at that giant ring. Aliens, plain as day!
:woot:
 
  • Like
Likes JMz, jbstemp, BiGyElLoWhAt and 4 others
  • #20
So the object in orbit is very close, has too little mass to create much of a wobble in the host star, but covers a surface area much larger than Jupiter?
DaveC426913 said:
I KNEW it!
Look at that giant ring. Aliens, plain as day!
:woot:
Giant ring huh? Obviously a Halo joke, but it gave me an idea.

If you tipped Saturn on it's side like Uranus and put it close to the sun, would it block enough light? It'd be quite variable since sometimes you'd see the rings head on and it'd block only as much light as the planet disc itself, but sometimes you'd see the rings from "above" and it'd have a shadow of hundreds of thousands of miles.

If the planet is that close to the star, it's moons are probably quite active and could easily create a ring I wo
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes RealTwistedTwin
  • #21
newjerseyrunner said:
Giant ring huh? Obviously a Halo joke, but it gave me an idea.
No, look at the picture! Post 17. Oh never mind, the joke's lost.

Besides, Larry Niven's Ringworld was around decades before today's video games... :P
 
  • #22
DaveC426913 said:
Besides, Larry Niven's Ringworld was around decades before today's video games... :P

Nonsense! The world didn't exist before video games!
 
  • #23
We'll know more when SETI tunes in ... and, oh let's point ole Hubble at 'er and see what's up.
 
  • #24
inuk2600 said:
Perhaps they appear so large because they may be a group of stray asteroids which are much closer to us than we think, and not in fact in orbit.
Would it be naive of me to suggest that, if that were the explanation, they would be regularly blocking off the light from many other sources? That would take an almost trivial test to verify the idea or otherwise.
 
  • #25
Before jumping to conclusions and speculation, I'd suggest people first read the paper linked by nsaspook in post #7. Section 4.4.1 provides constraints on the size and orbit of the debris.
To be frank, I don't even see where the whole Dyson sphere (or swarm or ring) idea came from, other than an off-kilter comment by one of the scientists. It doesn't fit the constraints at all.
 
  • #26
sophiecentaur said:
Would it be naive of me to suggest that, if that were the explanation, they would be regularly blocking off the light from many other sources? That would take an almost trivial test to verify the idea or otherwise.

If we had the capabilitity to apply Kepler level analysis to whole sky then yes I think we would see such a thing happening. Are you suggesting the possibility of a stray but dense swarm of asteroids (ok how about comets) in interstellar space is absurd?
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Bandersnatch said:
Before jumping to conclusions and speculation, I'd suggest people first read the paper linked by nsaspook in post #7. Section 4.4.1 provides constraints on the size and orbit of the debris.
To be frank, I don't even see where the whole Dyson sphere (or swarm or ring) idea came from, other than an off-kilter comment by one of the scientists. It doesn't fit the constraints at all.

The author specifies constraints based on the assumption of a circular orbit.
 
  • #28
inuk2600 said:
The author specifies constraints based on the assumption of a circular orbit.
Follow to section 4.4.5.
 
  • #29
Bandersnatch said:
Follow to section 4.4.5.

Still the author is assuming the objects are in orbit. However unlikely the relative speeds may be, can we confidently rule out the possibility that the objects are in interstellar space?
What other crazy ideas are we considering here? Orbital comets that massively occult a star that's bigger than the sun and an alien Dyson sphere.
 
  • #30
inuk2600 said:
What other crazy ideas are we considering here? Orbital comets that massively occult a star that's bigger than the sun and an alien Dyson sphere.
I prefer Hoyle's black cloud to an alien Dyson sphere.
 
  • #31
inuk2600 said:
Still the author is assuming the objects are in orbit. However unlikely the relative speeds may be, can we confidently rule out the possibility that the objects are in interstellar space?
What other crazy ideas are we considering here? Orbital comets that massively occult a star that's bigger than the sun and an alien Dyson sphere.
The problem with an interstellar cloud of debris is that you need it to maintain sufficient spread for the required occultation, without collapsing under its own gravity to form a more compact object.
 
  • #32
Bandersnatch said:
The problem with an interstellar cloud of debris is that you need it to maintain sufficient spread for the required occultation, without collapsing under its own gravity to form a more compact object.

Is it really a problem or a failure of imagination?
 
  • #33
inuk2600 said:
Still the author is assuming the objects are in orbit. However unlikely the relative speeds may be, can we confidently rule out the possibility that the objects are in interstellar space?

The authors clearly rule it out, saying "...clumps that are too distant move too slowly across the stellar disk to explain the observed duration regardless of their size; e.g., a 3-day duration dip cannot arise from a clump beyond 15 AU." And they go on to say "... the middle solid line and a depth of = 20% therefore decreases the outer limit on the clump locations mentioned above to closer to 8 AU."
 
  • #34
Ernest S Walton said:
The authors clearly rule it out, saying "...clumps that are too distant move too slowly across the stellar disk to explain the observed duration regardless of their size; e.g., a 3-day duration dip cannot arise from a clump beyond 15 AU." And they go on to say "... the middle solid line and a depth of = 20% therefore decreases the outer limit on the clump locations mentioned above to closer to 8 AU."

This is true if the objects are in orbit and local to the system. Remember these constraints assume the objects are in orbit.
 
  • #35
inuk2600 said:
Remember these constraints assume the objects are in orbit
Do you have any other suggestions?
 
<h2>1. What is KIC 8462852 and why is it significant?</h2><p>KIC 8462852, also known as Tabby's Star, is a mysterious and unique star located in the constellation Cygnus. It gained attention in 2015 when it was observed to have unusual and irregular dips in its brightness. These dips cannot be explained by any known natural phenomenon and have sparked speculation of extraterrestrial activity.</p><h2>2. What caused the sudden dip in March 2018?</h2><p>The exact cause of the dip in March 2018 is still unknown. Some scientists believe it could be due to a swarm of comets passing in front of the star, while others suggest it could be caused by a large object passing between the star and Earth. However, more research and data analysis is needed to determine the true cause.</p><h2>3. Has KIC 8462852 shown any other strange behavior?</h2><p>Yes, Tabby's Star has shown irregular dips in brightness multiple times since its discovery in 2015. These dips have varied in duration and intensity, leading to further confusion and speculation about the cause. However, no definitive explanation has been found yet.</p><h2>4. What are some theories about the unusual dips in KIC 8462852's brightness?</h2><p>Some theories suggest that the dips could be caused by a massive alien structure known as a Dyson sphere, which would block the star's light as it orbits. Others propose the possibility of a large planet or debris field passing in front of the star. However, these are all just theories and have not been confirmed.</p><h2>5. How are scientists studying KIC 8462852 and its unusual behavior?</h2><p>Scientists are using various methods to study Tabby's Star, including ground-based telescopes and space-based telescopes like the Kepler Space Telescope. They are also analyzing data and looking for patterns in the star's behavior to try and understand the cause of the dips in brightness. Additionally, scientists are searching for any signs of radio signals or other evidence of extraterrestrial activity in the star's vicinity.</p>

1. What is KIC 8462852 and why is it significant?

KIC 8462852, also known as Tabby's Star, is a mysterious and unique star located in the constellation Cygnus. It gained attention in 2015 when it was observed to have unusual and irregular dips in its brightness. These dips cannot be explained by any known natural phenomenon and have sparked speculation of extraterrestrial activity.

2. What caused the sudden dip in March 2018?

The exact cause of the dip in March 2018 is still unknown. Some scientists believe it could be due to a swarm of comets passing in front of the star, while others suggest it could be caused by a large object passing between the star and Earth. However, more research and data analysis is needed to determine the true cause.

3. Has KIC 8462852 shown any other strange behavior?

Yes, Tabby's Star has shown irregular dips in brightness multiple times since its discovery in 2015. These dips have varied in duration and intensity, leading to further confusion and speculation about the cause. However, no definitive explanation has been found yet.

4. What are some theories about the unusual dips in KIC 8462852's brightness?

Some theories suggest that the dips could be caused by a massive alien structure known as a Dyson sphere, which would block the star's light as it orbits. Others propose the possibility of a large planet or debris field passing in front of the star. However, these are all just theories and have not been confirmed.

5. How are scientists studying KIC 8462852 and its unusual behavior?

Scientists are using various methods to study Tabby's Star, including ground-based telescopes and space-based telescopes like the Kepler Space Telescope. They are also analyzing data and looking for patterns in the star's behavior to try and understand the cause of the dips in brightness. Additionally, scientists are searching for any signs of radio signals or other evidence of extraterrestrial activity in the star's vicinity.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
3
Views
619
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
34
Views
829
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
8
Views
617
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Aerospace Engineering
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top