A KIC 8462852 (dipping again in March 2018)

[nikkkom]

And how much energy would be required to get "that signal" out across any serious distance?

Irrelevant to the topic "how likely is this signal to be aliens".

 

[jerromyjon]

Irrelevant to this topic.

Let me rephrase then, why would you generate energy to send a signal when it's much easier to "send smoke signals"?

 

[nikkkom]

Let me rephrase then, why would you generate energy to send a signal when it's much easier to "send smoke signals"?

If you think its "easy" to dim a star by 20%, I have bad news for you...

 

[jerromyjon]

If you think its "easy" to dim a star by 20%, I have bad news for you...

I don't and I think it's easier to block 20% of a star then it is to generate 20% of a star's light...

 

[nikkkom]

I don't and I think it's easier to block 20% of a star then it is to generate 20% of a star's light...

Well, sending signals would not require 20% of star's power output. Not even 0.0001% is necessary. With basic RF engineering, signal's power can be billions of times less than star's output. Since you have very tenuous grasp of this field, I fully expect to see more replies with more ideas why "smoke signals are better", however I won't be replying. Sorry.

 

[jerromyjon]

Well, sending signals would not require 20% of star's power output. Not even 0.0001% is necessary

I thank you for the magnitude estimate but I still wonder how the signal would survive a journey through traumatic space and be received and recognized, etc. Dimming a star just seems like a good lighthouse type signal that seems "doable". That's all I was getting at.

 

[mfb]

@jerromyjon: Arecibo can send signals that an Arecibo-like receiver could pick up from tens of light years away with sufficient data rate to note its artificial content (prime numbers or whatever) and transmit some basic data over a few days or whatever. Transmitting signals over 1500 light years would need a better sender, but it is still something we could design today (at immense cost, but within current technology). Blocking 20% or even 0.01% of the starlight in a coordinated way is completely out of reach for our current level of technology.

@Pdgenoa: If there is a Dyson sphere somewhere we can recognize it as made by aliens. No one doubts that.
But if there is no Dyson sphere, it doesn't mean there are no aliens. And that direction is the problem.

We can rule out the hypothesis "comet swarm" with more data. We cannot rule out the hypothesis "aliens". Falsifiability is one of the most fundamental principles of science, and the alien hypothesis is not falsifiable.

 

[stefan r]

...The push to accept an extraterrestrial explanation ...

... Extraterrestrial explanation is...

All of astronomy has "extraterrestrial" explanations except maybe some lunar and near Earth orbits. Perhaps you intend to mean biological, sentient, or artificial?

...
Can you give an example of possible observations that would rule out alien influence?

We don't even have to go to other stars. Can you rule out that aliens assembled Pluto?..

I would be quite happy to see a model of a solid film forming in a vacuum and growing to planet size. Could be a valuable patent, certainly interesting.

Pluto-Charon looks like a planet formed by accretion. Hard to imagine a motive.

 

[jerromyjon]

Pluto-Charon looks like a planet formed by accretion. Hard to imagine a motive.

How dare you recall it a planet...

 

[jerromyjon]

and what does that make nix and hydra...

 

[Drakkith]

I think you are a bit too harsh. Extraterrestrial explanation is a "serious" contenter (it _is_ possible, it's not insane or totally stupid).

I disagree that a "serious" contender is one that simply isn't outright impossible.

To those reading this thread take note of the tone of my posts and the tone of this one: personal, emotional.

And also logical. Your support for your assertions so far has been "we can't rule it out therefor we should take it seriously". That's not how one does science. The "serious" contenders are the ones that we think are most probable based on our prior experience and current knowledge. That's where you start and that's where you begin to rule out the various possibilities.

This person has also done what a few other replies have done and characterize my assertion that the extraterrestrial hypothesis be a "serious" contender. I've only ever said it should be a contender and taken seriously.

Those are equivalent in many people's view.

This reply makes my point better than I've been able that there's a societal bias whenever the subject of extraterrestrials (in any context) comes up. It's not this person or anyone else's fault since it's been pushed in our culture for over fifty years. The impulse to shrug off, ridicule, dismiss, and in the case of the scientific community looked down on with derision. We have generations that have been marinated in the stereotypes of people taking aliens as serious as being crackpots, eccentric and unhinged. While it's pretty easy to understand where this bias came from it has no business in the scientific community.

Nonsense. We have hundreds of years of experience in explaining unknown phenomena and so far exactly zero of them have been attributed to extraterrestrials. On a list of possible explanations for the peculiar light curves of KIC 8462852, extraterrestrial aliens are so far down that they fall well outside the "serious" or "likely" sections. I'd put it in the "neat, but extremely unlikely" section at best.

 

[Drakkith]

All of astronomy has "extraterrestrial" explanations except maybe some lunar and near Earth orbits. Perhaps you intend to mean biological, sentient, or artificial?

Sentient extraterrestrial life.

 

[stefan r]

If there is a Dyson sphere somewhere we can recognize it as made by aliens. No one doubts that.
But if there is no Dyson sphere, it doesn't mean there are no aliens. And that direction is the problem.

I doubt that. And agree that there is a problem.

I can write about Dyson spheres because I do not have a telescope (at least not one worth mentioning). I do not have a lab. There is no budget for future projects that may be compromised by weird publicity. My employment would not be effected even if I was diagnosed insane or senile.

If you see evidence for a Dyson sphere the right thing to do is categorize it as a Vega type star. Then you should get more/better data. It would be a disservice to the public, your students, and/or your coworkers if you lose access. In the current social/political environment the right thing to do is not report what you believe you saw. Just document hard data so that someone in a future and less hostile environment can access your data and put together long term trends.

--
Note that KIC8462852 does not look like a Vega type star.

 

[Pdgenoa]

How dare you recall it a planet...

I get the joke but I want to point out that a "dwarf" planet is still a planet the same as a human with dwarfism is still a human

*additionally: suck it NDT!

 

[jerromyjon]

I get the joke but I want to point out that a "dwarf" planet is still a planet

R.I.P. formally planet known as Pluto in tribute to the artist formerly known as Prince...

 

[Drakkith]

I get the joke but I want to point out that a "dwarf" planet is still a planet the same as a human with dwarfism is still a human

No it isn't. Per the IAU:

The IAU therefore resolves that planets and other bodies, except satellites, in our Solar System be defined into three distinct categories in the following way:
(1) A planet¹ is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit.

(2) A "dwarf planet" is a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape2, (c) has not cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit, and (d)is not a satellite.

Planets and dwarf planets are in two distinct categories. A dwarf planet is not a subtype of planet, despite what the name leads you to believe.

 

[mfb]

The star keeps dipping. A fourth dip started, at more than 1.5% and potentially still getting deeper.

From here

Independent observations

 

[smartalek86]

I'm just wondering, what is our resolving power at those distances, i.e. what can we eliminate...
also is there any point in point an x-ray telescope at it?

 

[mfb]

Hubble has an angular resolution of ~0.05 arcseconds, at 1300 light years this corresponds to 20 AU. VLT in interferometry mode can reach 0.004 arcseconds, corresponding to 1.6 AU. This does not mean you could see anything a few AU away from the star, however: It is roughly a billion times brighter than possible planets.
ELT will get a 10⁸ contrast for 0.03 arcseconds separation (~12 AU), if there is something bright far away from the star that could be visible. 2024+The fourth dip is over, peak dimming was a bit more than 2%.

 

[smartalek86]

can something like this https://www1.lehigh.edu/news/‘styrofoam’-planet-may-help-solve-mystery-giant-planets
be eliminated?

 

[Drakkith]

can something like this https://www1.lehigh.edu/news/‘styrofoam’-planet-may-help-solve-mystery-giant-planets
be eliminated?

Probably. I don't think the interval between dips is short enough or regular enough to be explained by such a planet, which, according to the article, is a type of "hot Jupiter". These planets general have an orbital period of a few days and they cause predictable dips in the light curve instead of erratic dips.

 

[mfb]

There is some periodic structure, but nothing a single planet could do. The dips observed by Kepler are way too deep for any sort of planet, and they also last too long and have a structure too complex for a planet.

Multiple planets with ring systems are possible.

 

[stefan r]

can something like this https://www1.lehigh.edu/news/‘styrofoam’-planet-may-help-solve-mystery-giant-planets
be eliminated?

Alien fifth graders making a mega-structure does not have any evidence that I can find. Would be a sub category in "aliens made it". A megastructure made out of polystyrene seams as plausible as aluminum, steel, shell (silica, calcium carbonate), or spider silk. Any would still be a remarkable find.

A polystyrene foam with density 0.05 g/cm² and Earth radius would collapse into high density polystyrene. High temperatures and pressure would then modify the chemistry. I believe a Jupiter mass planet made out of an equal parts mix of hydrogen and carbon would be denser than Jupiter. Adding more mass does not increase the volume. Brown dwarfs are close to Jupiter's volume. A hollow shell with 20X Jupiter's surface might not collapse. It is hard to explain how that would come to exist.

Astronomers have found low density planets with radii larger than Jupiter. The article referred to KELT 11b. Hot Jupiter planets orbit close to stars and are hot. The high temperatures help explain the low densities. A 760 day orbit would not add much more heat than Earth gets from the sun (per square meter).

The thing around KIC 8468252 would have to have 1/5th KIC 8468252's cross section in order to block enough light. A hot surface radiates infrared radiation. When a hot Jupiter passes in front of a star the infrared should drop less than the measured visible light. When a hot Jupiter passes behind a star the measured infrared drops but visible light will measure normal for that star.

As a hot Jupiter sphere revolves the visible light should gradually change as the light reflecting off the surface waxes and wanes. Like full moon to new moon phase cycles. The reflected light also eclipses when the planet passes behind the star. The object around KIC 8468252 could be extremely dark and/or not a sphere.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Alien fifth graders making a mega-structure does not have any evidence that I can find. Would be a sub category in "aliens made it". A megastructure made out of polystyrene seams as plausible as aluminum, steel, shell (silica, calcium carbonate), or spider silk. Any would still be a remarkable find.

A polystyrene foam with density 0.05 g/cm² and Earth radius would collapse into high density polystyrene. High temperatures and pressure would then modify the chemistry. I believe a Jupiter mass planet made out of an equal parts mix of hydrogen and carbon would be denser than Jupiter. Adding more mass does not increase the volume. Brown dwarfs are close to Jupiter's volume. A hollow shell with 20X Jupiter's surface might not collapse. It is hard to explain how that would come to exist.

Astronomers have found low density planets with radii larger than Jupiter. The article referred to KELT 11b. Hot Jupiter planets orbit close to stars and are hot. The high temperatures help explain the low densities. A 760 day orbit would not add much more heat than Earth gets from the sun (per square meter).

The thing around KIC 8468252 would have to have 1/5th KIC 8468252's cross section in order to block enough light. A hot surface radiates infrared radiation. When a hot Jupiter passes in front of a star the infrared should drop less than the measured visible light. When a hot Jupiter passes behind a star the measured infrared drops but visible light will measure normal for that star.

As a hot Jupiter sphere revolves the visible light should gradually change as the light reflecting off the surface waxes and wanes. Like full moon to new moon phase cycles. The reflected light also eclipses when the planet passes behind the star. The object around KIC 8468252 could be extremely dark and/or not a sphere.

Hot Jupiter's also make the star itself wobble which there is no evidence for there. Whatever is passing in front of the star seems to have negligible mass.

 

[stefan r]

Hot Jupiter's also make the star itself wobble which there is no evidence for there. Whatever is passing in front of the star seems to have negligible mass.

This article claims they only measured within 400 m/s radial velocity. In their model they have a planet with orbital period ~12 years and trojans making the 2 year events. They calculate total mass less than 130 Jupiters.

The ESO has HARPS installed on a telescope and they claim 1 m/s velocity measurements. They built one for the northern hemisphere but measurements of KIC 8462852 did not come up in a google search. I would not call 1/4th Jupiter mass "negligible".

 

[Simon Peach]

A conglomeration of dark matter?

 

[Drakkith]

A conglomeration of dark matter?

Unlikely. The dark matter model that best fits the available evidence points towards dark matter which doesn't conglomerate.

 

[stefan r]

A conglomeration of dark matter?

"Dark matter" is a single concept. Does not mean the same thing as "matter which is dark". In order to be "dark matter" it does not emit, adsorb, or reflect light.

 

[Elroch]

NASA have concluded the explanation is most likely fine dust. The difference in dimming between ultraviolet and infrared makes larger solid objects unlikely explanations.

 

[Pdgenoa]

Yeah, the dust "proof" settles everything.

Except the gradual, century long dimming.
Or the periodic brightening of the star.
Or why the dust hasn't been pulled into the star if it's in the system.
Or how dust that's far away but in between us and it could have such dramatic occlusion.

So I'm just SURE this hypothesis won't end up like the past 27 hypotheses.
Yeah.