SETI: Science or Pseudoscience?

[scribble]

And people looking for supernovas are focussing on supernovas. So is your complaint valid against them too? Or black holes? Or dark matter? Or micro pulsars? Or whatever new thing is predicted by astrophysics?

(emphasis mine)

There's the crux, isn't it? ETI communicating by Radio within a reasonable range of Earth is *especially* not predicted by anything. Read my compariosn of SETI to the solar neutrino detectors (astrophysics!).

 

[Brian]

So the reasons why life might exist out there is because we exist here, and the universe elsewhere has the same physical properties and laws as there is here. That seems reasonable to me. Where I think it drifts into argument by analogy somewhat is believing it plausible that life elsewhere might have developed communications technology, and they might be doing the same thing we are, searching for intelligent life elsewhere.

I happily concede that it's a long shot. I can't think of any other way we're ever going to find out if there is more life out there. The distances are just to great to travel.

 

[rockoon]

It is my understanding that with todays technology in order to detect an EM signal sent by an ET, that they would have to be intentionally beaming directly at us and that it would most definately require that they expend enormous amounts of energy by todays standards in the process.

Now my thinking is that if they were going to go through what appears at least to us to be a lot of trouble, that they would most certainly use frequencies another civilization would likely be looking at..

Now ignoring what SETI looks at.. what EM frequencies do our other space projects look at? Is there one in particular that stands out? Something to do with hydrogen maybe? How about the background radiation from the big bang?

Also, what EM frequencies are the "cheapest" in terms of energy for transmitting long distances.. how about recieving? I think we can assume that if they have the capability to transmit EM radiation that they evolved to be either practical or greedy in some way.

Are there 'dead zones' in the spectrum where we dont expect natural processes to produce (much) radiation in?

If SETI has been looking at these regions of the spectrum for several decades and hasn't found anything.. then at this point doesnt it seem rather unlikely that we will be hearing from our neighbors any time soon?

 

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Unless I'm misunderstanding scribble he thinks exploration is a waste of money. Lets explore the oceans, no says scribble. Mars? "no". what is wrong with looking?

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

The most obvious difference between searching for psi phenomena and searching for ET radio signals is that SETI doesn't rely on any new science. Radio emissions and the existence of life are well-established facts, and our consideration of that possibility that something might be beaming signals our way follows quite reasonably from those principles. Psi involves looking for a new phenomenon which hasn't even been shown to exist yet.

 

[scribble]

Unless I'm misunderstanding scribble he thinks exploration is a waste of money.

Nope, exploration is good. SETI is not exploration. SETI is a lone hypothesis in a gigantic sea of possibilities, fetched at random. Part of it's test involves viewing a very narrow range of signal types over a very large area... characterizing that as explorationis shaky at best.

If you want to argue the full scope of experiments carried out by radio observation is exploration, I'll put up no argument at all.

 

[T'ai Chi]

SETI doesn't claim to be able to demonstrate whether there is intelligent life somewhere within the universe. It only addresses the question of whether radio signals are being sent out in the neighborhood of Earth.

So who or what is sending these radio signals to or around Earth.....?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Radio emissions and the existence of life are well-established facts,

Existence of life on our planet, sure.

and our consideration of that possibility that something might be beaming signals our way follows quite reasonably from those principles.

So because radio emissions exist and life on this planet exists, you think that life elsewhere exists, that it invented radio technology, is beaming signals our way, and we can find them with our technology and understand them, is reasonable to assume?

Psi involves looking for a new phenomenon which hasn't even been shown to exist yet.

I wasn't aware the ETI in SETI had been shown to exist. Perhaps you could point me to the paper..

 

[MESchlum]

It is my understanding that with todays technology in order to detect an EM signal sent by an ET, that they would have to be intentionally beaming directly at us and that it would most definately require that they expend enormous amounts of energy by todays standards in the process.


Not that huge. Two 100 meter diameter antennas (Arecibo is larger), one using 100 kW of power, can communicate at 1 bit/second up to 500 light years away.

There *are* a lot of directions, and directed beacons give you a much better return than omnidirectional, but the time and resources to cover a few hundred stars are easily in our reach.


Now my thinking is that if they were going to go through what appears at least to us to be a lot of trouble, that they would most certainly use frequencies another civilization would likely be looking at..


Agreed.


Now ignoring what SETI looks at.. what EM frequencies do our other space projects look at? Is there one in particular that stands out? Something to do with hydrogen maybe? How about the background radiation from the big bang?

Also, what EM frequencies are the "cheapest" in terms of energy for transmitting long distances.. how about recieving? I think we can assume that if they have the capability to transmit EM radiation that they evolved to be either practical or greedy in some way.

Are there 'dead zones' in the spectrum where we dont expect natural processes to produce (much) radiation in?


For radio, the area between 1 and 10 GHz is relatively quiet, so that's what we focus on (well, there is the "water hole" at 1.42 GHz, but besides that it's relatively clear).


If SETI has been looking at these regions of the spectrum for several decades and hasn't found anything.. then at this point doesnt it seem rather unlikely that we will be hearing from our neighbors any time soon?

Define decades. Sorry.

The close range SETI search has been running since 1984 (2 decades), examining nearby stars for up to 100 seconds at a time, for maybe 10 days once or twice per year at most (observation periods at Arecibo). Total observation time, assuming (which is not the case) that every star is studied every time: 80.000 seconds. About one day of continuous observation per star, for about 600 stars.

Decades?


We have been looking, but the total amount of observations we've been able to make so far is fairly limited. Not because we can't do more with our technology, but because we, as a species, have chosen to perform research elsewhere.

How many research prjects would reject the hypothesis after a single day of observation? I'm sure there are some - but at the time scales we're looking at, it seems a bit premature.

 

[MESchlum]

Those statements are demonstrably false. The computer you're using right now is a direct result of the theoretical physics of 50 years ago, and new advancements are coming all the time as people turn theory into practice.

In other words, those types of research have a proven track record when it comes to helping people out. SETI does not.


There are immediate benefit to physics, sure. Though I'd like to know what immediate benefit you expect from knowing the mass of a neutrino. What about the other examples? When new ideas about quantum mechanics (or any other topic) turn up, should they be rejected because they have no track record?

Of course not - I think we both agree on that.

But if you're after SETI's track record, here are a few samples:
* better signal detection algorithms
* the next generation of radio telescopes, an order of magnitude (sorry, only 6) times cheaper than current technologies, and potentially much less expensive as we make bigger systems.
* a collection of useful patents, including an improved mamography technique - relying on the fact that we can filter out noise *very* well.

Could these things have turned up otherwise? Sure. Did the focus and interests of SETI make their discovery occur faster? I like to think so.


You admit that you are not objective, and expect other people to take what you say seriously? Why is that?


I admit that I'm convinced enough that there is ETI that I say "when" contact occurs, not "if". If you don't like this viewpoint, substitute "if" for when I say "when". Where does my perspective alter the information I provide? I confess it may colour it - but the viewpoint that there is nothing to find also colours what you say. Is it wrong to make my opinions known, so that others can treat what I say accordingly?

I don't think you believe that either - and I hope my explanation will suffice.


I think there are two possibilities: first, that communications are limited to the speed of light, in which case response times are going to be too slow for it to be particularly worthwhile. If FTL communications are possible, I doubt that advanced civilizations are going to bother fiddling around with radio-obsessed primitives like ourselves.


Sorry, I don't believe in FTL. But I'll take you seriously anyway.

If they have FTL (which I don't believe), then we have no way of knowing what to look for, or how to find it, or anything, in fact. So yes, the best thing for SETI to do is to wait for physics to improve until we have FTL too.

But that's a bit fallacious. How did they get FTL? Does every other civilization have FTL? Then why don't we? Can't we look for others who don't have FTL either?

Now let's get back to speed of light issues. If they are nearby (on the timescale of our civilization, not of our lives), dialog is possible. If they are further away, we can't hope for many replies.

So what do we do?

Say they are 10 light years away (I don't belive that either). We can send out questions, wait for answers, and tell them things with relative ease.

100 light years: it's starting to be a while, we could still make a few exchanges, but sending them lots of data at a time makes sense - after all, it's wasteful to wait for their questions if we can send them better explanations as we go.

1000+ light years: the odds of an exchange are low, so why are they sending things out? Insert your favorite science fiction plot here, or think about something new. In any case, there seems little point in sending out a brief message and then stopping - it seems likely (to me) that they (or we) would send out as much as possible.


All assuming that these advanced civilizations will want to "educate" us. Since when did any human civilization give technology and assistance to a less-advanced one with no strings attached?

Jeremy

Research? The process, I mean - telling others who have not yet managed to make your brilliant discoveries.

Discussing things calmly on the message boards so we can explain our viewpoints?

A key point here is that, unlike much of human civilization, there is no practical way for one side (however advanced) to actually do much more than talk to the other. And since you're spending a lot to do so, why waste it?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Yes it is. Also surprising he can't conjure up one of his usual irrelevant rejoinders. Gratifying but surprising.

1) It's not claiming to have found anything yet, and

2) presumably it won't until it actually does find something.

Irrelevant. Your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing.

Let me know how you think the ETI's (the ETI in SETI) existence, technological advancement, and them trying to send signals to us, our being able to detect it, and our being able to understand it, was determined to be plausible. If you come up with something other than an argument from analogy or sample size n = 1, I'd be interested in hearing it.

I'd predict your success of anwering these questions using a Drake-equation-like-equation. Unfortunately, I'd get for your measure of success anything from .000000001 to 100000000, so who really knows.

 

[RichardR]

Irrelevant. Your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing. [/B]

It's not irrelevant. I answered your exact question which was "how is SETI different from searches for 'psi' stuff". The two things I listed were two precise differences. You should check to see what question you asked before commenting on the answer.

 

[RichardR]

(To Claus)
Yes it is. Also surprising he can't conjure up one of his usual irrelevant rejoinders. Gratifying but surprising.

I spoke too soon.

 

[MESchlum]

Irrelevant. Your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing.


Thanks! You wouldn't believe how good reporters are at catching hints that we may have something - fortunately, they have been very good about letting us confirm before going off and telling tall tales.

In other words, nothing yet, but lots of people hope there will be.


Let me know how you think the ETI's (the ETI in SETI) existence, technological advancement, and them trying to send signals to us, our being able to detect it, and our being able to understand it, was determined to be plausible.
[/B]

Mind if I try?

Piecemeal:

ETI's (the ETI in SETI) existence

Evolution. There, I said it - stars evolve, planets evolve, life evolves, and we've seen enough evidence of them all.

We've been finding planets all over the place since we developped good enough telescopes (and the "we" I mention is the astronomical community, not SETI), and that has been changing the models of stellar and planetary formation.

A recent estimate (sorry, no quote underhand, so dismiss it if you prefer) was that about 10% of all stars had nearby Jupiter+ size satellites. None of those are good for SETI as we see it, but planetary formation seems a lot more common than we first expected.

Given a few billion years, biologists are fairly convinced that life can appear (see all the arguments in favour of evolution). SO what makes our little corner of the Milky Way so unique that the odds of life appearing are nil elsewhere?

Intelligent life: well, we have less evidence for that (though some argue that the entire point of SETI is we haven''t found any here ), so I'll plead the n=1 (from my n=1 perspective, I'm sure you could find other experts with better arguments), times a few billion stars.

technological advancement

Time.

The sun is relatively young for a star of its type, and there are others that are 2-3 billion years older. If intelligent life appeared on one of them, even with a different evolutionary path, they would have quite a head start.

Which reminds me: one result of SETI for the sake of SETI: from what we have seen (mostly via the SETI@home project, which covers a lot more of the sky with less detail) there are probably no Type II or Type III Kardashev civilizations around (capable of manipulating the power of their star or galaxy respectively). Not a surprise, but a negative result - and we don't hide from it.

them trying to send signals to us

My area of specialisation. To give you a rough answer, it is yes, given technological advancement.

Why? Emitting is more expensive and takes longer to produce results than receiving, so older civilizations (see above) tend to do it more often.

Oh, you want a percentage? Well, I'm fond of the 1/3 ratio myself, and could write your ears out about the math around it.

Less than 1/2 anyway, but very low only if technology is severely discontinuous.

our being able to detect it

Within 60 years, if all goes well, we should have the galaxy pretty well covered, at near full time. That's if Moore's law goes on without slowing too much, and we can continue to increase the size of our telescopes - the ATA is good evidence of the latter.

I'd even venture that a fair number of SETI researchers would start working on something new if they failt to get anything once that is set up. Satisfactory? though they might start lobbying to be allowed to emit...)

our being able to understand it

Quite low at first. Which is why we are after signs of intelligent life, not conversation. The most detectable part would be a carrier wave (possibly distorted by Doppler effects), which contains no information (besides the fact that there is something out there).

Once we know what to look for, decoding can begin. Phase modulation, amplitude modulation, periodic aspects... We can get a lot of raw data out of that.

Check for mathematical aspects, to see if it's some of the simple coding we've imagined so far (like drawings in 5*5 boxes, since 5 is prime so the drawing would be hard to miss).

Calculate the entropy of the signal, given a sizeable mass. Experiments (I can dig up the reference if you want it, but it'll take some time) show that language has a lower entropy than music, which as a lower entropy than noise - for all the languages tested. So we'll know if a portion is language, or something else (like drawings, perhaps)?

Given time, ingenuity, and good data, we should be able to get something out of it - and once we reply, tey will be working on the problem too.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It's not irrelevant.

Yes, they are, because: your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing.

Please let me know how you think the ETI's (the ETI in SETI) existence, technological advancement, and them trying to send signals to us, our being able to detect it, and our being able to understand it, was determined to be plausible. If you come up with something other than an argument from analogy or sample size n = 1, I'd be interested in hearing it. Will you?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why? Emitting is more expensive and takes longer to produce results than receiving, so older civilizations (see above) tend to do it more often.

Just what older civilizations are you referring to? None have been shown to exist outside of Earth. How do you know what these hypothetical civilizations tend to do?

 

[epepke]

tai'chi and scribble - it seems that your entire argument has degenerated into " SETI is not worth time and/or money" whereas the original question is, "Is it science?" Although I personally believe that it IS worth it, it really doesn't matter. It is not using any of my money or your money (unless you are a private donor, which I highly doubt...) Now, if you actually believe that it is not science, then please tell us why...

It isn't science because it doesn't have all of the components of science. It has two of the components of science: 1) a hypothesis, and 2) a protocol for testing the hypothesis. In order to be science, there also has to be feedback from the results of the testing protocol to revisions of the hypothesis. This hasn't happened, yet, and they are wise not to put that step in yet.

It isn't pseudoscience for exactly the same reason.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, they are, because: your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing.

Stop, stop, stop. STOP!

T'ai Chi, you asked for differences between SETI and psi research. Richard gave you two.

Now, you try to move to goalposts by claiming that it also has to be science.

You asked a question, you got an answer, you didn't like it, so you deem it "irrelevant". The two examples Richard gave are perfectly relevant.

 

[RichardR]

Yes, they are, because: your 1) and 2) don't necessarily make SETI science, they just make them honest reporters at whatever they are indeed doing.

Please let me know how you think the ETI's (the ETI in SETI) existence, technological advancement, and them trying to send signals to us, our being able to detect it, and our being able to understand it, was determined to be plausible. If you come up with something other than an argument from analogy or sample size n = 1, I'd be interested in hearing it. Will you? [/B]

No it is not irrelevant. One more time, since you are apparently having trouble with reading comprehension:

I answered your exact question which was "how is SETI different from searches for 'psi' stuff". The two things I listed were two precise differences.

Go back and read the question you asked. I answered it. If you No True Scotsman me one more time you'll be joining your friend Sherlock Holmes on my ignore list.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

SETI is performing a perfectly scientific study of astronomically nearby radio emissions. It amazes me how little its function and goals are understood by the population in general and the population of this board in particular.

Sheesh. Some people act like SETI is beaming signals out into space and searching for an expected reply!