Interesting radio signal from Proxima Centauri - odds against being alien neighbours

[Ophiolite]

A radio signal apparently originating from the Proxima Centauri system, our nearest neighbour is being investigated. The character of the signal suggests it is technological, or some hitherto unknown and unpredicted natural phenomenon. The researchers are seeking local explanations, so far without success.

Word of the discovery was leaked to the Guardian newspaper before the research was completed and published.

And here is the Universe Today's account of it.

 

[Lost4words]

Its Laika!!!! She is alive!! She is trying to contact us! Woooof!

 

[pitabread]

This article nicely reinforces that what SETI is looking actively searching for is *not* coded information to determine whether a signal is potentially artificial in origin.

Per the article:

BLC-1 doesn’t carry data or a message. It’s not a modulated radio signal with voice or information.​

 

[SelfSim]

It was a tone .. not a 'signal' then. (Ie: it presents with no apparent modulation harmonics, which we normally decode to retrieve message bearing information).

It drifted upwards in frequency slowly over time, which implies it was from an uncontrolled source.

According to the Scientific American article, it has not been independently verified, nor has the observation been repeated by the original observatory (Parkes).

 

[Paulos23]

It is very likely local, so I am glad they are focusing on that first.

Still, it is exciting that it might be coming from that far away.

 

[loveofourlord]

Sounds like this is what we've been predicting IF it is intelligent life. You don't look for the messages, you look for the carrier signal, think radio stations that have a bright carrier signal that tells you there is something more to look for.

I think before it was mentioned that we wouldn't be able to detect the signals *from here maybe but the 'dysan sphere" would require building a telescope in space to detect the feinter messages and such.

 

[Ophiolite]

It was a tone .. not a 'signal' then. (Ie: it presents with no apparent modulation harmonics, which we normally decode to retrieve message bearing information).

No. It was a signal. The term radio signal is a common synonym for a detected radio emission, as in this example article. I'm sure if you were motivated you would find other examples.
Indeed, the phrase radio tone you seem to favour is not only not common usage, but is suggestive of the audio tone accompanying TV test cards in the days before 24 hour broadcasting. As such it feeds into the likely fallacious notion that this signal is evidence of alien technology. Your error is thus simultaneously egregious and amusing.

It drifted upwards in frequency slowly over time, which implies it was from an uncontrolled source.

The Guardian article noted "an apparent shift in its frequency said to be consistent with the movement of a planet".

According to the Scientific American article, it has not been independently verified, nor has the observation been repeated by the original observatory (Parkes).

So? That still leaves the original signal to be explained. The expectation and the probablity point to an artificial source of human origin, or a novel natural explantion, but until the work is complete any further speculation (for or against) is closer to waffle than actual speculation. With that in mind, over to you.

 

[SelfSim]

You don't look for the messages, you look for the carrier signal, think radio stations that have a bright carrier signal that tells you there is something more to look for.

It isn't necessary to transmit the actual carrier tone in all situation .. for power saving reasons - (eg: as in double sideband suppressed carrier transmission techniques).

I think before it was mentioned that we wouldn't be able to detect the signals *from here maybe but the 'dysan sphere" would require building a telescope in space to detect the feinter messages and such.

Dyson spheres/swarms are science fiction/technobabble.

In theory, gravitational lensing using could be used to amplify a limited subset of possible deep space transmissions (alignment geometry dependent).

 

[loveofourlord]

It isn't necessary to transmit the actual carrier tone in all situation .. for power saving reasons - (eg: as in double sideband suppressed carrier transmission techniques).

Dyson spheres/swarms are science fiction/technobabble.

In theory, gravitational lensing using could be used to amplify a limited subset of possible deep space transmissions (alignment geometry dependent).

no no i meant that so called dysan swarm

 

[SelfSim]

No. It was a signal. The term radio signal is a common synonym for a detected radio emission, as in this example article. I'm sure if you were motivated you would find other examples.
Indeed, the phrase radio tone you seem to favour is not only not common usage, but is suggestive of the audio tone accompanying TV test cards in the days before 24 hour broadcasting. As such it feeds into the likely fallacious notion that this signal is evidence of alien technology. Your error is thus simultaneously egregious and amusing.

(Says an obvious novice in RF transmission theory ..)

On Earth, RF tones are modulated specifically for message transmission reasons .. which then produces a message carrying signal. In the case of deep space origins, (and if this case turns out to be such), then one cannot assume one has received a message carrying signal for every reception then, can one? A tone (time drifting) is all that is presently evidenced in this instance.

I am not referring to common language here .. its technical .. (and you're failing to recognise that).

The Guardian article noted "an apparent shift in its frequency said to be consistent with the movement of a planet".

Depends on the frequency of movement of the source, now .. and who cares what 'The Guardian' says?.. It doesn't have to be a planet .. does it?

So? That still leaves the original signal to be explained. The expectation and the probablity point to an artificial source of human origin, or a novel natural explantion, but until the work is complete any further speculation (for or against) is closer to waffle than actual speculation. With that in mind, over to you.

What on Earth are you arguing about? Do you actually know .. or are you just in your typical fight-picking grumpy mode?

 

[SelfSim]

no no i meant that so called dysan swarm

.. ok .. but it still doesn't matter .. So-called 'Dyson Swarms' are still sc-fi technobabble.

 

[loveofourlord]

.. ok .. but it still doesn't matter .. So-called 'Dyson Swarms' are still sc-fi technobabble.

ummm....not the point I'm talking about that supposed event last year, and one of the things brought up UNRELATED to if it was or not, was that in order to be able to communicate if it turned out to be something, was that it would require building a large enough radio telescope in space, as we unlikly would be able to pick up any communications with our earth based systems at that distance.

 

[SelfSim]

ummm....not the point I'm talking about that supposed event last year, and one of the things brought up UNRELATED to if it was or not, was that in order to be able to communicate if it turned out to be something, was that it would require building a large enough radio telescope in space, as we unlikly would be able to pick up any communications with our earth based systems at that distance.

The Sónar Calling GJ273b messaging signal sent in October 2017, encodes information sufficiently slowly enough, (for the antenna and power used in transmitting it), to allow its correct decoding at a distance of some 12.4 light years, using ground based antennas and receivers similar to our own.
Compare that with the OP focus on the Proxima Centauri - Earth distance .. which is only about one third of that .. (at about 4 light years).

Also relevant: see Active SETI Beacon Proposals in Wiki:

Once civilizations have discovered each other's locations, the energy requirements for maintaining contact and exchanging information can be significantly reduced through the use of highly directional transmission technologies.

A 2018 study estimated a 1 to 2 megawatt infrared laser focused through a 30 to 45 meter telescope could be seen from about 20,000 light years away.

So, I'm not particularly familiar with the conversation you mention, but if so-called sci-fi technobable 'Dyson swarms' were invoked by someone as being necessary to achieve contact with ETIs .. well, that was completely bogus, probably unconstrained (ie: generalised), web-nonsense(?)

 

[Ophiolite]

On Earth, RF tones are modulated specifically for message transmission reasons .. which then produces a message carrying signal. In the case of deep space origins, (and if this case turns out to be such), then one cannot assume one has received a message carrying signal for every reception then, can one? A tone (time drifting) is all that is presently evidenced in this instance.

Fascinating. What a shame it isn't relevant.

I am not referring to common language here .. its technical .. (and you're failing to recognise that).

The failure is all on your side. I have provided one of many examples wherein the word signal is applied to a detected radio wave of undefined origin, with no implication that the origin is anything other than natural. The audience in all the documents referenced thus far is a non-technical audience. Sensuo stricto usage is not required for such an audience, especially when the simpler alternative's validity has been well established in the popular scientific press.

Depends on the frequency of movement of the source, now .. and who cares what 'The Guardian' says?.. It doesn't have to be a planet .. does it?

The Guardian is reflecting the views of astronomers whom they have intereviewed. It is interesting that one explanation for the variation in the signal (see how convenient that one word is) is that of an orbiting planet. If we are interested in the signal then possible explanations consistent with its character are of intrest.
On the other hand if you just wanted to pour cold water on the idea because you had a knee jerk reaction that you thought someone was claiming alien contact then you really ought to go elsewhere.

What on Earth are you arguing about? Do you actually know ..

I thought it should be obvious. If you weren't so agenda driven you could read what is written, not what you think is there. I'll break it down for you. Pay attention.

• An interesting signal has been detected.
• One possible explanation, out of many, would be a technological source in the neighbourhod of Proxima Centauri.
• Some of the other, more prosaic, explanations have been discarded and others are under investigation.
• (Why all this fuss? The investigators are specifically interested in seeking out signals that might be the product of an advanced alien civilisation. If you are not interested in such ventures perhaps you should be elsewhere.)
  
• I would be hugely surprised if the explanation for the signal were not ultimately shown to be quite mundane, but find the investigation interesting.

or are you just in your typical fight-picking grumpy mode?

You need to read up and take on board the concept of projection.

 

[SelfSim]

.. Sensuo stricto usage is not required for such an audience, especially when the simpler alternative's validity has been well established in the popular scientific press.
...
The Guardian is reflecting the views of astronomers whom they have intereviewed.

Yep .. you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

The fact is that no 'simpler alternative's validity has been well established'.
This is because of the fact is that this news leaked out before the team had finished their analysis.
All you're doing is reading tea leaves, parsing vague newspaper statements based on your penchant for immaculate (yet errored) grammar, (in spite of unverified content), and taking astronomer's casual speculations as carrying objective weight.

One possible explanation, out of many, would be a technological source in the neighbourhod of Proxima Centauri .. {etc, etc}

Back to more noteworthy facts: (as opposed to vacuous 'possibilities'):

i) It was present for around three hours in 5x30 minute 'on' pointings and not at all in the interspersed 'off' (nodded) pointings. It presented with a positive drift rate, and appears at 982.002 MHz, and was apparently unmodulated.

ii) If it emanated from space (not confirmed), it would have to be from inside a 16 arcminute circle around Proxima .. about half the width of the full moon (that being the main boresight beamwidth of the main Parkes antenna).

 

[Loaves and Fishes]

 

[Danthemailman]

 

[Ophiolite]

Yep .. you've fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

The fact is that no 'simpler alternative's validity has been well established'.
This is because of the fact is that this news leaked out before the team had finished their analysis.
All you're doing is reading tea leaves, parsing vague newspaper statements based on your penchant for immaculate (yet errored) grammar, (in spite of unverified content), and taking astronomer's casual speculations as carrying objective weight.

Back to more noteworthy facts: (as opposed to vacuous 'possibilities'):

i) It was present for around three hours in 5x30 minute 'on' pointings and not at all in the interspersed 'off' (nodded) pointings. It presented with a positive drift rate, and appears at 982.002 MHz, and was apparently unmodulated.

ii) If it emanated from space (not confirmed), it would have to be from inside a 16 arcminute circle around Proxima .. about half the width of the full moon (that being the main boresight beamwidth of the main Parkes antenna).

When you have something relevant to say send me a pm.