The UFO Phenomenon |
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 26> |
Author | |||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:46 | ||||||
Why? Reading fiction is always a pleasure and never a waste.
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20642 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:53 | ||||||
No...I don't 'want to believe', but I'd like to know the truth if there is some to find here.'...what's your agenda Dean..? Do you want to 'not believe'..? Speculating about alien motivation is certainly valid if we are discussing possible aliens on earth, and since the vast majority of scientists do believe in the very strong likelyhood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy it's once again a valid topic. What makes you think that we know all there is to know about physics and the various aspects and 'laws' involved. Just a few hunderd years ago we thought rocks could not fall from the sky and the earth was flat. We may learn that our understanding of thsoe 'laws' is incomplete.The point is that we will certainly discover new scientific techniques and principles that allow space travel in the future unless you think we are forever doomed to remain on earth. Ergo a race many centuries beyond us may have discovered means of interstellar travel. |
|||||||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||||||
dr wu23
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 22 2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 20642 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 10:54 | ||||||
You....read fiction...? Never.....simply doesn't fit your profile. |
|||||||
One does nothing yet nothing is left undone.
Haquin |
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:07 | ||||||
Nope. I seek plausibility and rationality - if aliens exist (and I am open to the possibility that they do based purely on the scale of numbers alone) I accept that the distances involved prohibit us ever knowing. If they are here then I want to know how and why they are here and how and why they got here and how and why they knew to come here. Nothing has provided even the merest glimpse of an answer to any of those fundamental questions or any incontrovertible evidence that such an event has ever happened.
Believing there is a strong likelihood of life elsewhere in the universe is not quite the same as believing in the very strong likelihood of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. The magnitudes of probability difference in those two statements is huge (astronomical even). Neither of these two statements have any bearing on speculating about alien presence on Earth and their motivations.
We have known the earth is roughly spherical for millennia and we have known about rocks falling from the sky for equally as long - you need to un-bookmark where you get this stuff from. Neither of those "myths" changed physics or altered how we do stuff. New scientific techniques are not new laws of physics. I do not doubt that interstellar travel will one day be possible, I do however, have doubts about whether this will live up to the expectations of Science Fiction and FTL travel regardless of how better our understanding of physics becomes. Wishful thinking is not wish fulfilment.
Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 11:08 |
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:09 | ||||||
Shows how little you know fo me then
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator Retired Admin & Razor Guru Joined: February 02 2004 Location: South England Status: Offline Points: 14693 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 11:24 | ||||||
I'd be happy if someone could just tell me how to pronounce "panspermia hypothesis" - everytime I try, it sounds like the Hungarian for "my spacecraft is full of eels" |
|||||||
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
|||||||
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 12:16 | ||||||
God bless you Dean.
|
|||||||
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||||||
ArturdeLara
Forum Senior Member Joined: April 06 2012 Location: Faro, Portugal Status: Offline Points: 124 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 13:31 | ||||||
Oh the irony
|
|||||||
"Those who are not shocked when they first come across Prog theory cannot possibly have understood it." - Niels Bohr
"If you think you understand Prog, you don't understand Prog." - Richard Feynman |
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 14:44 | ||||||
It appears you know Pat as well as you know me (Thanks Pat... Right back at ya)
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 16:57 | ||||||
You would think that given all the sources of radio transmission we have (radio, TV, radar, cell-phones, wifi, bluetooth, garage door openers, microwave ovens, remote control, remote monitoring, emergency bands, GPS, ship to shore, air traffic control, walkie-talkies, cb-radio, ham radio, military comms, etc) that our technology fingerprint would be huge and would be broadcasting our presence into space like a huge flashing beacon announcing "HERE WE ARE" with such emphatic disregard for the peace and quiet of our interstellar neighbours it is little wonder we've not had a visit from the intergalactic police requesting us (very politely of course) to turn the bloody noise down.
The problems of detecting our technological finger-print from the vast distances of space is more than just a problem of distance. As has already been commented, the electromagnetic radiation we produce are very weak. Just how weak these are cannot be overstated - we know that we are producing a lot of EM radiation here on Earth, we just have to buy a radio receiver to detect it. When you consider that each of the 44,000 FM radio station in the world broadcasts with a typical power of 100kW (giving a total of 4.4 billion watts), each of the 6 billion cell phones that exist in the world are transmitting with a typical power of ½W each (giving a total of 3 billion watts) then the gross amount of EM radiation we are producing when you factor in the really powerful stuff like communication satellite up-links and general satellite broadcasts such as TV and GPS and the cell-phone networks, it easily runs to numbers that can be measured in terawatts. Surely this is easy to detect from space?
The problem for the extraterrestrial listener is that much of this EM radiation does not leave the local confines of the Earth. How much is determined by the kinds of antenna used by the various transmitters we have and how powerful those transmitters are.
An ideal point-source transmitter radiates radio waves equally in all directions (x, y and z) and are called "isotropic" and are barely more than theoretical - the closest we have to the theoretical isotropic radiator are the spark-gap transmitters of the 19th century experiments into radio broadcasting - and they are an extremely inefficient use of power when what you are trying to do is communicate between two points on the surface of the Earth, plus any signals transmitted up into the sky (the z-axis) are a waste of power. These transmitters are not only inefficient, they are also very low powered, permitting communication of a few hundred metres at best. Even though these antenna are isotropic and therefore radiate upwards, the radio waves produced would not be powerful enough to be detected from beyond our atmosphere.
The next kind of antenna is a dipole, this aerial only transmits in the x and y axis in a doughnut shape giving a more efficient use of transmitter power - most radio uses this method (broadcast AM & FM radio, non-satellite TV, cell-phones, home wifi hubs, bluetooth devices, military and aircraft comms etc) - we call these "omnidirectional" but in reality they only transmit horizontally (x and y) and not into space.
The third kind of antenna has reflectors and directors to focus the beam of radio waves into a cone shape (often cardioid due to the inefficiencies of the reflectors), these are sometimes called "beam" or "directional" and only transmit in the x-axis. Variants on these are parabolic dishes and the like that we use in radar and to communicate with satellites. When it comes to satellite communications the only source we need consider is up-link, since any down-link (TV and GPS) is obviously pointing to the Earth and not out into space.
Next thing to consider is transmitter power itself - a ½W cell-phone is not going to reach more than 30km at best (and those of us who live in rural areas find even that to be optimistic), most FM radio stations have a range of less than 100 miles - and since the antenna used in both those transmitters does not radiate upwards we can discount them as a source for our alien to detect, along with wi-fi, bluetooth, microwave ovens, aircraft comms, emergency band and many other low power terrestrial point-to-point radio communication routes.
Since radio waves travel in straight lines one would assume that the Earth-based omnidirectional and directional antenna would beam their signals towards the horizon and keep going through the atmosphere and out into space allowing our distant alien to eventually detect them. Unfortunately it's not as simple as that.
One of the layers of the atmosphere of interest to radio specialists is the Heaviside layer, this is a layer of ionised gases some 90-150 km above the surface of the Earth - lower to medium frequency radio waves have a tendency to bounce off this layer back down to Earth, this is why we can receive radio transmissions from beyond the horizon, and it is also why little of these transmissions will leave the Earth and radiate into space.
Another problem with radio waves is they are easily attenuated by anything that gets in their way - we all know that anything conductive can shield radio waves, this goes for anything with a high water content such as clouds, and we know that for higher frequencies any solid object can block the wave (X-Rays) and others objects can bounce or reflect them (radar).
Atmospheric events can also disrupt radio transmission, solar flares, aurora, electrical storms, rain... all affecting how any stray signals can leak out into space. Another barrier has to contend with for any signals that manage to escape the Earth's atmosphere is the Van Allen radiation belt, which can also attenuate or generally affect the signals, and as I said in a previous post, we really don't know what effect the Oort cloud will have on these EM waves.
Therefore while we are indeed creating terawatts of EM radiation here on Earth, not very much of that gets out into space and what little that does has to contend with the inverse-square law when traversing the large distances between stars. As Pat and I have said, our radio signals are very weak and space is very big.
So, what if our alien civilisation is very advanced had has some really sensitive receivers? In the old days of terrestrial broadcast television I could easily demonstrate the next problem the alien has to negotiate, and that is static. De-tune an analogue TV set and you can see and hear the static being received - a lot of that static is thermal noise and about one-third of it is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation of the big-bang, once the signal you are looking for disappears below that it is lost. As we know from Earth-based radio and TV reception, the only way to improve reception (and therefore range) is to increase transmitter power, not receiver sensitivity. Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 18:05 |
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
The Doctor
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 23 2005 Location: The Tardis Status: Offline Points: 8543 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:02 | ||||||
^WHOA! That's a whole lotta words.
|
|||||||
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 17:54 | ||||||
I've just calculated¹ the transmitter power needed to send a signal to our nearest stellar neighbour (Proxima Centauri ) 4.2 light-years away that will arrive there with the same energy density as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation... and it's 240 zettawatts (240,000,000,000,000,000,000KW).
...and our Sun is only 1,680 times more powerful than that.
So based upon that we are essentially invisible to any alien civilisation no matter where they are.
¹ I have to admit the number surprises even me, I may have made a silly error, so anyone who can confirm or deny my calculations is welcome to have a go.
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:41 | ||||||
That number seems high. Please show your work.
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:48 | ||||||
P = I(ave)*4*PI()*r^2 ... where r is 4.2 lightyears in metres and I(ave) is the CMBR average power intensity
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:50 | ||||||
What is I(ave)? Treating it as a noise and assuming a temperature of 2.725 K, I get around -224 dBW/Hz.
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 18:57 | ||||||
I(ave) is the average energy density (40 femtoJ/m³) times the speed of light
/edit: Intensity(Physics) Edited by Dean - April 23 2013 at 19:35 |
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:07 | ||||||
Don't know enough about CMBR so I need to google for a bit.
If I just use thermal noise at ~ 300K I get something on the order of 50 TW, still an insane amount of power. Don't forget that antenna gains can mitigate some of this requirement. Edited by Padraic - April 23 2013 at 19:19 |
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:17 | ||||||
...for it to produce pocket-size tranmitter powers I(ave) would have to be really really small given that r^2 is really really big.
4.2 light years = 39.73E+15 metres, so r^2 would be 1.6E+33 ... and that's a mahoosive number.
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 19:44 | ||||||
|
|||||||
What?
|
|||||||
Padraic
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: February 16 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Status: Offline Points: 31169 |
Posted: April 23 2013 at 20:26 | ||||||
Even if we could do it, it would be too annoying for me to have to wait 8.4 years for a response after saying "Hi".
Edited by Padraic - April 23 2013 at 20:26 |
|||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 23456 26> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |