 |
| omalycat | ||||| Thursday, March 07, 2002 - 09:46 pm
Has there ever been any discussion relating to SETI equipment on the Hubble? I've also read that an orbiting platform would be prime for an optical SETI program. Isn't this important research the foundation of everything we all want to know, anyway? "What's out there?" I think it's crazy this most basic of questions doesn't generate more support. |
| Dave | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 05:52 am
I have never heard any discussion of SETI research with Hubble. I'm not sure how one would go about it in the optical -- is the current HST instrumentation suitable, or would it require a new instrument?
But I would disagree about SETI being the foundation of everything I want to know. I can think of a great many things I want to know, that do not depend on results from SETI. I want to know if the neutrino background predicted by the Big Bang exists. I want to know if 90% of the mass of the universe is in a weakly interacting massive particle as yet undiscovered. I want to know if there's a Higgs boson. I want to know if QCD can be made to predict all the meson masses. I'm just getting started here. There a lot of things I want to know, and SETI doesn't loom very large in the list. |
| Scott | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 03:15 pm
Interesting. It seems like both of you want to know "what is out there." Just not the same things. I know Dave knows what SETI is but it is quite possible that the other person in this discussion does not. SETI is the Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence. SETI does do some basic research also, but mostly it looks for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence. A good many scientist see this as a waste of money, this is why SETI does not loom large on their lists.
I like Dave also want to know a great many things that do not depend on results from SETI. Not that I am against a small amount of funding for SETI, but there is a lot of things I want to know (not just in astrophysics like Dave). Unfortunately funding every little research project would cost a fortune.
BTW -- Dave aren't you curious about whether dinosaurs really did evolve into birds or not? Or are you just curious about the origins of the universe, etc.? |
| omalycat | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 06:14 pm
Point well taken, Dave. I'm no scientist, guys, just your average welder from Ohio. I am curious, though, as to why so many consider the search to exraterrestral intellelligence to be such a waste of time? Are there practical reasons for this, outside of funding problems? I'm no UFO freak, and think most reports are total B.S, but it seems to me the best way to generate more funding for the sciences would be to generate more public interest. With all due respect to astrophysics, put extraterristrials in the ring with the nuetrino background and who do you think's gonna come out the winner? From a purely scientific standpoint, your both probably right. Add a little spiritualism,though, and I can't think of anything that would change our world more than to know that we're not the only ones around, and that all of our self-involved infighting is nothing but a waste of energy. And what an achievment that would be.
No expert, but I don't think any of the current instumentation is suitable for optical SETI work. From what I understand, optical SETI looks for pulsed and continuous wave laser beacons in the visible and infared spectrums. Not real sure what kind of instramentation would be needed.
Anyway, if so many believe it to be a waste of time, maybe I'm wrong. I guess the grandness of the idea facinates me a little. Thanks for the lesson session. |
| Dave | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 06:50 pm
I think that the argument is not on which piece of information is more important, but rather, which are we more likely to get. The biggest problem with funding the SETI program is that we can only guess at what to look for. SETI assumes that an extraterrestrial intelligence is sending out very powerful signals into space saying "hello". Although this is possible, many feel that it is unlikely. When in doubt, look at what we do. Do we have loudspeakers positioned all over the jungles and oceans saying hello? Are we devoting a large effort into broadcasting "hellos" to the universe? The energy it would take would be very considerable if we are broadcasting in a wide beam throughout the galaxy.
It's not that we aren't curious, and that we feel it's not important. Many of us just feel that this particular way of looking is not likely to pan out. |
| Dick Hicks | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 07:25 pm
By the nature of this thread I see Dave as looking outward and backward in time to understand the origin of life. Omalycat and Dave want to set up receptors to listen for possible ET,s. Dave does not prejudge the answer, he is searching for evidence to determine the building blocks of life as we know it. Omalycat and Dave have a preconcieved belief that saye we are not alone, there must be some one else out there. Alas trying to prove that something exists by searching it out with our limited mind sets is as difficult as finding the needle in a haystack when we do not know if there really is a needle in the haystack. None the less, if listening for SETI makes you feel good, go for it. |
| omalycat | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 07:35 pm
Great answeres, guys, and a lot to think about. Thanks. |
| r.aravindan | ||||| Friday, March 08, 2002 - 09:46 pm
i thought there may be a chance of other intelligent species in this universe,because some strange signal are identified by the SETI peoples using the knowledge of dolphines. |
| Dave | ||||| Saturday, March 09, 2002 - 03:49 am
To respond to Scott's comments, scientists do indeed need to balance the research they think will be most fruitful with the stuff the public (and hence Congress) finds interesting. It would be good if the public were more informed about technical matters so those two directions would be more closely aligned, but sadly that is not so. SETI is one of the happier compromises, as the radio astronomers have gotten Congress to fund the construction of scientifically useful radio telescopes by promising they would be partly used for SETI research. Also, it's a good thing if stuff like SETI catches the interest of kids and moves a few of them to study for technical careers.
And yes, I am curious about things other than the origins of the universe -- as I said, I was just getting started. To take another example, I wonder if mankind will ever know how to form a large organization without it sinking into an inefficient bureaucracy -- a problem which is known to have plagued mankind for thousands of years, but which we still have no clue how to solve.
And to omalycat, one of my other multiple personalities has made some good points, but I wanted to add: I think I see now what you're thinking about for optical SETI. Sounds like it will require some new technical developments, which once in place will be useful both for SETI and for new astronomical studies. And to better answer your original question, I don't think Hubble would be the place to do it, for two reasons: 1) sounds like it will generate far more raw data than Hubble's telemetry system could handle, and 2) it could be done just as well from ground-based telescope, since it wouldn't require any of Hubble's special expertise. Because Hubble is more expensive than other observatories, all research on Hubble is required to be stuff that only Hubble can do. |
|
