Radio experiments are better than observational experiments – less energy cost
Shostak, Radio Astronomer at SETI Institute, 1
(Seth, April, Vol. 101, Issue 4,Sky & Telescope, EBSCO, “The Future of SETI”) PG
Radio works. And 30 years ago, researchers were convinced it works best -- better than light, for instance. The argument was twofold. Microwaves handily penetrate interstellar dust, whereas visible light is blocked. But a subtler point is that radio requires less energy per bit of information, which ought to make it the communication medium of choice for any alien engineers. In the radio regime, the minimum background noise you'll encounter is the faint, 2.7 degrees Kelvin afterglow of the Big Bang. In the microwave part of the spectrum this means you typically need to receive just 50 photons per bit to stand out from the noise. No problem. But at higher, optical frequencies, a photon is more energetic and expensive. Even a single infrared photon packs 5,000 times more punch than the group of 50 necessary to send one bit at microwave frequencies. So higher frequencies mean higher energy costs.
Radio experiments are improving—an ideal radio experiment is feasible
Shostak, Radio Astronomer at SETI Institute, 1
(Seth, April, Vol. 101, Issue 4,Sky & Telescope, EBSCO, “The Future of SETI”) PG
Radio SETI may no longer be the only game in town, but it's still the game to which most researchers belly up. That's because the odds of a jackpot, though quite unknown, are unquestionably getting better all the time -- because the instruments are growing more capable by leaps and bounds. The ideal SETI radio telescope can only be imagined. It would monitor every point on the sky, in every radio channel from one end of the microwave window to the other (about 1,000 to 11,000 megahertz), all the time -- a true Omnidirectional Search System, or OSS. Unfortunately, this ideal is a very long way off. But it's no longer impossible to work toward. The STWG team considered what it would take to build a reasonable interim OSS. They were seduced by the thought of a telescope able to find powerful but intermittent signals, the kind that none of the current large SETI experiments has a hope of detecting.
AT: False Signals
SETI scientists can identify ET signals definitively
Folger, Editor at Discover, 11
(Tim, January, Scientific American, Volume 304, Issue 1, p40-45, EBSCO, “Contact the Day After”) PG
SETI SCIENTISTS THINK they know, in broad terms, what an ET signal will look like. To stand out as obviously artificial against a background of natural cosmic radio emissions, the signal would have to be narrow, with a lot of energy packed into a few frequencies. Natural phenomena, such as pulsars and interstellar gases, spew out radio emissions at many different frequencies. If an observatory ever receives a narrowband signal coming from an astronomical distance, the source would almost certainly be artificial.
SETI good—prevents false alarms
Harrison, Professor Emeritus, University of California, Davis, 97 (Albert A., After Contact, Google Books, 1997) PG
Policy development and advocacy, science education and information control are among the strategies proposed for guiding humanity through the search process and its aftermath. Over the years, SETI committees of the International Academy of Astronautics, along with other groups, have developed policies intended to prevent false alarms (by insisting on careful verification) and to release information to benefit all humankind. Logsdon & Anderson [40, p. 89] hoped to frame the initial announcement in such a way as ‘to minimize confusion, anxiety, fear, and perceptions of threat among the general population’. They sought precedents in strategies for announcing earthquakes, nuclear accidents and other disasters. They found that actual announcements (as in the case of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown) tended to fall short from the ideal.
***Answers to CPs***
Private CP
Privatization of SETI raises questions of evidence authenticity
Shuch, executive director of the SETI league, 1999
(Paul, Seti League, “Standards of Proof for the Detection of Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence,” August 6, http://www.setileague.org/articles/proof.htm, June 20, 2011, NS).
A related problem is that non-professional involvement in SETI science increases the opportunity for the perpetration of hoaxes. The SETI League, Inc. has already been peripherally involved in three separate false claims of ETI contact. Two were simple cases of mistaken identity, easily rectified. But the third was an elaborate hoax perpetrated by an internet hacker who broke into our closed signal verification list. It is small consolation to us that this hoaxter was not a member of The SETI League at all. In fact, in analyzing and refuting this claim, our members comported themselves admirably. Responsible science demands that we attempt to prove the null hypothesis -- that is, to try our level best to disprove any claimed contact. Only if we fail in our very best efforts to discredit a signal can we begin to contemplate its validity. The claimed detection from EQ Pegasi was easy to discredit. The screen dumps which were posted to the internet were cut-and-paste masterpieces. They proved the power of our software -- not of our signal processing software, but of a graphics program called Paint Shop Pro. Even though the fraudulent nature of the claims signed "anon1420" was instantly evident to knowledgable SETIzens, the press chose to imply that the SETI community was covering up some great discovery. Such claims call for a prompt but measured response, so as not to subject the SETI community to charges of complicity in conspiracy or cover-up activities. Thus we have a dilemma: how to encourage grass-roots participation while avoiding association with fraudulent and pseudo-scientific claims? Standards of Proof. Which brings us to the issue of what constitutes incontrovertible proof of ETI contact. The question is complicated by the fact that the general public (from whom the Project Argus constituency is largely drawn) may make only a vague distinction between proof and faith. The spectrum of human skepticism vs. gullibility encompasses a wide range of extremes, characterized by diverse viewpoints ranging from "of course they exist -- we couldn't possibly be alone!" to "I'll believe in the existence of intelligent extra-terrestrials only when one walks up and shakes my hand." We must take pains to prevent such declarations of faith from clouding the judgment of our SETIzens. We start by acknowledging that one can never conclusively prove the negative, but that it takes only one counter-example to disprove it. Conservative experimental design demands that we frame our research hypothesis in the null form: "resolved that there are no civilizations in the cosmos which could be recognized by their radio emissions." Now a single, unambiguous signal is all it takes to disprove the null hypothesis, and negate the notion of humankind's uniqueness. But what constitutes an unambiguous signal? A popular definition holds it to be one which could not have been produced by any naturally occurring mechanism which we know and understand. But this is an insufficient condition.
Share with your friends: |