Fermi Paradox - Communications Problem

I think it is appropriate to repeat a post made not long ago:

It remind me of the problem with SETI like initiatives to detect intelligent life activity in the cosmos by listening to radio signal. I will give us, human as an example. We began to use radio transmission in the early 20th century but not until mid-1920s, that amplifying vacuum tubes allowed practical and powerfull radio transmissions.

From that time, radio transmissions were mostly analogic, exhibiting strong and discrete powerfull spectral peaks that can be easily detected against noise and qualified as being not natural. But still if we orient an antenna toward earth, we will get thousands upon thousands of these signals one over the other and it will mostly look like noise. Imagine this a couples light year away and drowned in the radio noise the sun emit.

Now come the 21th century and all radio transmissions are being converted to numeric with a spectral enveloppe designed to minimize discrete spectral peaks and compressed to get maximal spectrum efficiency. These numeric transmissions, even when near and strong simply look like noise. Look at them using a spectrum analyser if you don't believe me.

There is no chance these signals could be detected vs noise couples light years away. So my point is for human civilisation, the radio detection window, if such thing is possible, only existed for a mere ~80 years!!! We are not talking million years here.

originally posted by: Cofactor
I think it is appropriate to repeat a post made not long ago:

So my point is for human civilisation, the radio detection window, if such thing is possible, only existed for a mere ~80 years!!! We are not talking million years here.

Yeah, but the other point is that even if radio transmissions from an alien civilization even only lasted an average of 100 years or so, then if they exist they still should be filling the skies with signals. We could potentially pick up a signal from a planet 5,000 light years away if they were broadcasting 5,000 years ago, 5,010 ly away if they were broadcasting 5,010 years ago, and so on back billions of years from billions of planets.

But we don't. Signal degradation is a tough nut to crack. Particularly if we're looking for something that is rare or non-existent to begin with.

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
If even the most conservative estimates about intelligent life in the universe are close we are most certainly not alone.

The most conservative estimate is zero.

originally posted by: Moohide
According to this article from 2010 - Article - we are leaving less of a footprint by turning to digital as opposed to analogue.

From the article Frank Drake says "Human beings are making it harder for extraterrestials to pick up our broadcasts and make contact". (By using digital), your transmissions will become four times fainter because digital uses less power. Very soon we will become undetectable," he said. In short, in space no one will hear us at all.

So by advancing technology, we become quieter, so i would think that would be the same for an alien civilisation.

So we need to build something that is a lot more powerful for detecting than our current tech if we want to find other beings, that also covers every single band, frequency, wave and spectrum known to us (radio, IR, gamma, x-ray everything). Yes it would cost money and need tremendous computing power, but we are advancing technology very quickly at the moment.

The only signals we send out - digital OR analog - that are strong enough to detect 15 LY away are radar pulses sent when we map the surfaces of planets and the Moon. And then only if the alien planet happens to be in the same direction.

Regular TV and Radio, even if it's all analog, doesn't have a chance at that distance.

Harte

a reply to: Blue Shift

Yeah, but the other point is that even if radio transmissions from an alien civilization even only lasted an average of 100 years or so, then if they exist they still should be filling the skies with signals.

From that time, radio transmissions were mostly analogic, exhibiting strong and discrete powerfull spectral peaks that can be easily detected against noise and qualified as being not natural. But still if we orient an antenna toward earth, we will get thousands upon thousands of these signals one over the other and it will mostly look like noise. Imagine this a couples light year away and drowned in the radio noise the sun emit.

I'm a big fan of technology. I wonder if there might be a way to sort through the signals by firing off an insanely fast (relativistic) rocket receiver and then using the phase differences in any linear signals to filter out most of the noise. Something I'm toying with in my head.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

at some place in the Fermi paradox it stipulates that advanced civilizations will exterminate themselves. I believe it is a real problem and has occurred elsewhere, and might happen on earth too. We are heading the right way for this imho.

In the unlikely event that nothing destroy our civilizations, (for example, a huge meteor, eruption of massive volcanoes, nuclear war, and whatever else we may not even have thought about) it is only a matter of time ( relative to the time we have invented i mean ) before we develop technologies that will allow us to do whatever we want to do. Our imagination is limitless, but for now the means are.

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
Our imagination is limitless, but for now the means are.

I have also read that one thing that could easily happen is that we develop our virtual entertainment to such a high degree that our little brains won't be able to tell the difference between the artificial and the real. And the deal with that is that virtual reality is relatively cheap compared to flying to real planets, and it's all-inclusive. You don't have to be an astronaut. All you need is the latest X-Box 4-D.

Think about the total number of years people have spent watching TV or typing junk into the Internet. Now imagine if it was a virtual reality that would allow you to personally explore thousands of planets and have wonderful adventures on them. Who would want to spend any money on exploring actual space, with its ridiculous distances and deadly radiation and chunks of boring rocks? A few academics, maybe. Otherwise, most of us would choose to immerse ourselves in VR.

So forget exploring the galaxy. We all have galaxies within our own minds. And if aliens are anything like us, they may have turned inward a long time ago and just given up on the boring emptiness of space.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
Our imagination is limitless, but for now the means are.

I have also read that one thing that could easily happen is that we develop our virtual entertainment to such a high degree that our little brains won't be able to tell the difference between the artificial and the real. And the deal with that is that virtual reality is relatively cheap compared to flying to real planets, and it's all-inclusive. You don't have to be an astronaut. All you need is the latest X-Box 4-D.

Think about the total number of years people have spent watching TV or typing junk into the Internet. Now imagine if it was a virtual reality that would allow you to personally explore thousands of planets and have wonderful adventures on them. Who would want to spend any money on exploring actual space, with its ridiculous distances and deadly radiation and chunks of boring rocks? A few academics, maybe. Otherwise, most of us would choose to immerse ourselves in VR.

So forget exploring the galaxy. We all have galaxies within our own minds. And if aliens are anything like us, they may have turned inward a long time ago and just given up on the boring emptiness of space.

That's okay.
We could develop a superpowerful wifi link with the aliens and use the VR to interact with them.

Harte

a reply to: Blue Shift

That is entirely possible, albeit there is a difference between androids and human beings. a virtual reality might be fun and stimulating for both, but in the end human beings are not androids or robots. we have emotions, we need food, seeing trees and walking in nature is relaxing etc. I think if human beings are too imbricated into wires, waves, technologies that are more suited for machines than organic beings, we might get sick and have a wide range of mental disorders.


or maybe not.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
a reply to: Harte

That's what I heard as well. Even measurements would collapse the entire state of the entagled system.

Hurdles or boundries?

Measurement of the "home" particle is what causes the distant particle to collapse into a specific quantum state.
You can't predict the "home" particle quantum state before measuring it, and you can't make the particle assume a specific quantum state.
So you can't send any information at all, except for the quantum state you found when measuring.

Harte

You don't need it to assume a specific state. "Has a definite quantum state" vs. "Has an indeterminate quantum state" can be your "1"s and "0"s for binary communication.

You can test a quanta to see if its state has been measured and is now definite or not.

So if you want to broadcast a "1", you take a million entangled particles and measure the one of the pair that is near you. Now the ones that are far away should also have a definite state.

The receiver puts their million through a test to see if this batch has a definite state also, and if it does they count it as a "1". If it doesn't, they count it as a "0"

It would require quite a lot of them, because I'm not sure, but I think the difference only becomes apparent when you test a lot of them and watch for a statistical outcome.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

You can test a quanta to see if its state has been measured and is now definite or not.

No you can not tell whether a particle has been measured or not. Where did you get this idea from?

For entangled particles all you can see are correlations when comparing measurement results. Without the comparison all you'll get is random data.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

The shuttering system they designed at Los Alamos National Labs 50 years ago to rekey satellites required a back channel to compare statistical information. If the statistical rollups matched the finer detail was known secure without the possibility of a middle man. There was a timing element provided by the shutter that prevented a photon clone exploit though.

Imagine if speed of light is not constant.
Imagine if it is determine by relationship of Pi to the radius

Speed of light / 2 *Pi * radius = frequency
299792458 / 2 * Pi x 6371km = 7.89 hz (where r = radius of earth)
close to shuman resonance i.e The Schumann Resonance, 7.83Hz, is one natural radio band in our atmosphere

now for saturn

Csaturn / 2 * Pi x 60268km = Frequency (r = radius of saturn)
Saturns Frequency is 147.85Hz

C speed of light relative to experienced on saturn.

Csaturn / 2 * pi x 60268km = 147.85
solve Csaturn = 55987100537.96

C Saturn/ C Earth = 55987100537.96/299792458 = 186.75

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: zeroPointOneQ
a reply to: Harte

That's what I heard as well. Even measurements would collapse the entire state of the entagled system.

Hurdles or boundries?

Measurement of the "home" particle is what causes the distant particle to collapse into a specific quantum state.
You can't predict the "home" particle quantum state before measuring it, and you can't make the particle assume a specific quantum state.
So you can't send any information at all, except for the quantum state you found when measuring.

Harte

You don't need it to assume a specific state. "Has a definite quantum state" vs. "Has an indeterminate quantum state" can be your "1"s and "0"s for binary communication.

You can test a quanta to see if its state has been measured and is now definite or not.

So if you want to broadcast a "1", you take a million entangled particles and measure the one of the pair that is near you. Now the ones that are far away should also have a definite state.

The receiver puts their million through a test to see if this batch has a definite state also, and if it does they count it as a "1". If it doesn't, they count it as a "0"

It would require quite a lot of them, because I'm not sure, but I think the difference only becomes apparent when you test a lot of them and watch for a statistical outcome.

You're talking about "weak" measurements of quantum states, which can - in some specific cases - determine the state of a particle without changing the state.
However, this method doesn't work when you try to apply it to the determination of whether a particular entangled particle (or collection of entangled particles) has been measured at the source.
Weak measurement can't tell you whether or not the distant particle has been observed.
So, you can't use measurement itself as a "0" or "1".

Harte