this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Space

8560 readers
100 users here now

Share & discuss informative content on: Astrophysics, Cosmology, Space Exploration, Planetary Science and Astrobiology.


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

πŸ”­ Science

πŸš€ Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Tylerdurdon@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Okay, so the title is a bit off. They're hunting for partial Dyson spheres using infrared and optical.

I was confused on how they would detect something completely blocking a sun from millions of light-years away.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Even a Dyson sphere, which is technically unlikely anyway, would be possible to spot. You would look for something very bright in the infrared spectrum with almost no light in the visible spectrum. It would also be larger than a normal star of the same energy, but that would be hard to tell given all the other issues.

A partial swarm is easier because it will have variability towards more infrared and then back to a more normal spectrum.

And, of course, all this is speculation until we find a candidate and determine it doesn't have a natural source for that behavior.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why would there necessarily be strong infrared emissions? Since a Dyson Sphere is meant to harvest all energy produced by a star, any leakage would be unnecessary inefficiency, wouldn't it?

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Thermodynamics says that energy can't be destroyed (mass-energy, but generally that won't matter). So after the work of running your stellar civilization is done, you will radiate out waste heat. There is no real way around this without breaking thermodynamics or having a handy black hole to dump all your waste heat into. Therefore, the energy of the star will still be released, but it will be released as infrared.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you're using the Dyson sphere purely as a power plant and e.g. charge batteries, the thermal radiation will be distributed over the whole area covered by the civilization.

A solar panel, or any other power generator we use, doesn't radiate away all the generated energy either. It's radiated from the point of use.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So you heat habitats, which radiate heat. And run computers, which radiate heat. And move objects around, which radiates heat (among other things). And if you merely absorb energy from your star...it radiates as heat. This is the whole idea of entropy. Unless your lasers are particularly efficient and you use them to beam the energy elsewhere, your Dyson swarm is going to radiate heat equivalent to the energy your star puts out.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're ignoring my example - what if you charge up batteries at the Dyson sphere, and use the energy anywhere else? There's no physical reason the energy must be used around the Dyson sphere.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So all you need is a perfect charging system. We don't have those, and physics doesn't allow for them. This would be no different than the laser example I gave, and this only makes sense after you have a second Dyson swarm.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why perfect? As long as the efficiency is high enough, you wouldn't see the sphere itself as very bright, it would be quite dim. Do we know any hard, physical limitations for this, like we do for speed?

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A partial answer to your question is that there's a minimum amount of heat necessarily radiated when doing computation, given by the Landauer principle.

Furthermore, I also do not think that we will detect dyson spheres, because if a civilisation wishes to hide, they won't radiate heat uncontrollably by extracting all possible energy, but rather send that energy elsewhere, for example by dumping it into a black hole. But I could be wrong and such a civilisation might care more about energy than remaining undiscovered.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A partial answer to your question is that there’s a minimum amount of heat necessarily radiated when doing computation, given by the Landauer principle.

It's not a given that Landauer's principle is an absolute threshold - the Wikipedia article describes challenges, and there are attempts like Reversible Computing which can potentially work around it.

Furthermore, I also do not think that we will detect dyson spheres, because if a civilisation wishes to hide, they won’t radiate heat uncontrollably by extracting all possible energy, but rather send that energy elsewhere, for example by dumping it into a black hole. But I could be wrong and such a civilisation might care more about energy than remaining undiscovered.

Fully agree that such an advanced civilization will most likely want to hide, and stop any infrared radiation to the largest part.

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Reversible computing can not work around it because one simply can not extract information without irreversibly affecting the system. This is a fundamental constraint due to how, in quantum mechanics, once an observer entangles themselves with a system they can never unentangle themselves. I believe that from that single fact one can derive the impossibility of reversible existence.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

Better go tell the theoretical computer scientists who waste their time writing papers on the topic! Could save them a lot of trouble if they had just asked you.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Dyson swarms are more likely. We even have a tiny one with our satellites using solar power in a heliocentric orbit. (Dyson spheres are basically impossible.) But we could theoretically detect either in infrared since if it doesn’t give off waste heat, it’d all heat up and melt.

That being said, I’m personally of the opinion this is a waste of time. Not to get all Fermi Paradox but it’s pretty sci fi brained to think any other species out there is as dumb as we are. Space sucks. You die super fast there. Everything had to align just right for Earth to make a bunch of dumb fuck apes willing to strap themselves onto rockets, have a planet small enough that the rocket could even overcome gravity to enter orbit using chemical rockets, and a World War and Cold War to accelerate things.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Everything had to align just right for Earth to make a bunch of dumb fuck apes willing to strap themselves onto rockets, have a planet small enough that the rocket could even overcome gravity to enter orbit using chemical rockets, and a World War and Cold War to accelerate things.

Given the estimated number of planets in this galaxy alone, it's particularly guaranteed that very similar events have occurred on multiple worlds. Unless you're proposing that all theoretical alien races are Vulcan level logical then tensions and interstate conflicts will always exist that will advance technology. This is practically an inevitability unless the race question is a hive mind species.

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I think my Fermi Paradox explanation is that space is really fucking big and hostile and protecting the planet you evolved on is the only real option.

[–] sudoreboot@slrpnk.net -1 points 4 months ago

Not to mention the problem of what life is even supposed to do beyond a certain point of development. The depressing fact is that there is a finite amount of knowledge to be gained, a finite amount of resources to harvest, a finite diversity of life to contend or thrive alongside with. Once a pocket of life in this massive universe begins to run out of things to do and stagnates, then what? What is there to think about; to feel; to experience?

There's little point in exploring space if one know how this universe works. One knows the rules, knows all the ways it can play out, and there's no surprise waiting on the other end of any venture one can imagine embarking on.

That's my theory. The Great Filter is just depressive boredom. We don't see other life because by the time a civilisation is able and ready to spend thousands of years travelling through deep space, they'll have already lost any motivation they might have had to do so.

I suspect that there's at best a very short window wherein a species is both knowledgeable enough to dream of space exploration and technologically capable of sending any significant amount of artificial constructions out there.

Not to mention that anything an alien species might send into interstellar space is unimaginably unlikely to be recorded exactly at precisely the moment they pass another lump of matter - especially if the window is as short as I fear.