I once got the chance to ask freeman dyson what he recommended educationally, for children, to produce more freeman dysons.
He didn’t hesitate. He said we need to teach children genetic engineering to children in such a way that they could approach it playfully. Only then would we have a chance of developing warm blooded plants which would be essential for colonizing the asteroid belt.
Always have to comment on the meme Dyson spheres posts with the following: has anyone ever thought, for one second, that a civilization capable of building these massive energy systems would actually be capable of generating energy in other different ways that we can't even imagine? This whole "Type I, II, III" civilization crap is stupid because it is based off one paper, of one guy, who had a creative idea. Props to him for the creativity, but millions of scientists every day have possibly creative ideas about space fairing civilizations. Its like sci-fi novels creeped into real science. Literally ape brain to just "wrap a star and capture its energy!"
I think most people "like" the idea because it's so tangible. But that doesn't make it any more or less likely that it actually exists or makes sense.
Could stars blacked out by Dyson spheres or other technology that completely harnesses their energy be an explanation for dark matter? Or would this matter not be so "dark" due to the heat signature?
Let's presume that the universe is full of Dyson Spheres, and the gravity they produce is what we call "Dark Matter". Well, Dyson Spheres must be built, right? So earlier in time, there would be fewer of them, and later in time there would be more of them.
When we look into the sky, we look back in time. So if this were the case, when we look backwards in time we should see more brightness and less dark matter effects, while closer in time we should see less brightness and more dark matter effects.
We do not see those patterns. Dark matter is consistent over time, as far as we can tell, and brightness from stars remains what we would expect.
Any sort of Dyson-spherish thing would radiate in infrared, and not be dark at all. A long time ago somebody went looking for these infrared emitters, and found billions (and billions) of them in our galaxy alone. Turns out low-grade infrared-emitting stars and star-like things are more common than dirt. There is no way to tell them apart from a hypothetical Dyson thingy, even if there were any actual reason ever to build one of those. (Which, hint, there isn't.)
I think most if not every galaxy has dark matter so if it’s Dyson spheres that would mean that nearly every galaxy was colonized with Dyson spheres in the same way (except ours because we don’t have evidence of a galaxy-wide civilization).
Indeed, Dyson spheres would need to release some amount of waste heat, due to the laws of thermodynamics. If there were too many of them that heat would be visible (at least to infrared telescopes,) so we know that’s not the explanation for dark matter. Same with dust and other non-luminescent matter- it’s all way more visible than dark matter has to be, somehow.
what would prevent an intelligent civilization from covering all other stars in dyson spheres?
and the dark matter is everywhere (almost, there're galaxies without it) which would mean that most of the universe has intelligent life but then why there's no other signals? something should've leaked/pointed at it
Most people get baked, wonder if we're alone in the universe, and take a nap. Astrophysicists get baked, wonder if we're alone in the universe, and publish papers like this.
Jokes aside, is there really any practical value in this sort of research, or is it the kind of thing that we do because it's interesting and kinda cool? Don't get me wrong, I think it's valuable for that alone, but...
Searching for Dyson spheres is not too different from searching for other hypothetical astronomical objects. Maybe it is a low-stakes analysis you could put some students on, so they learn something. Data collection, statistical methods, paper writing is all identical to "traditional" searches. I come from particle physics, and we did quite a few searches for very weird particles that, I admit, didn't believe in. But it was quick to retool the search for more plausible models.
Also I think science works the way that you use your fantasy to come up with outlandish things, and then try to rule them out with logic.
It's a low cost, low probability way to look for advanced civilizations. Chances are low that you'll find anything, but hey the data's already here and we have powerful computers so let's run some calculations. And occasionally you find weird and interesting anomalies that push science forward: https://www.space.com/alien-megastructure-mysteriously-dimmi...
> is there really any practical value in this sort of research
In many ways it is too early to do this research, so it is a kind of art (as is a lot of research, imho). As long as only a few people do it, it's cool and useful so we can be aware of our potential future.
On the other hand, since we have no credible evidence of extraterrestrials, it would be surprising to find a civilisation so advanced to build a Dyson sphere. If they can build Dyson spheres, wouldn't they already be all over the place?
Ok, I suppose I should actually go read the paper now...
It depends on how you define practical value. Immediately capitalizable? Probably not outside of Hollywood. Building a theoretical underpinning for the future of our species? I hope so.
Was there any practical value in Columbus discovering America? If the Aztecs had instead sailed to Europe or Africa and discovered them, would that have been of any practical value to them?
It's difficult to imagine a discovery that would have more practical import than the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilization.
I just did a quick look through the doc but it does not appear that they take into account that Dyson shell elements would try to radiate waste heat directionally to the north and south of their orbits as to avoid too much thrust from radiation that may alter their orbital paths or the paths of other Dyson shell elements.
The signal this would create to an outside observer I think would significantly change the heat signature and periodic changes, depending on our observation angle to the star.
If a Dyson sphere captures a large proportion of the radiation from a star, what is the destiny of that energy?
It gets converted into other kinds of energy, and eventually becomes waste energy, ending up as low-grade heat. Hence the search for infra-red sources. But the amount of energy that a Dyson sphere absorbs must be equal to the amount of low-grade heat it radiates; so I'd expect a Dyson sphere to be very bright in infra-red - much brighter than brown or red dwarfs.
Dyson spheres are just inane.... sorry but they don't make sense.
Any advanced form of civilization that can build one, probably figured how to do fusion efficiently locally and doesn't have to build these insanely inefficient energy harversters.
Keep in mind that the sun is very inefficient at energy release.
Dyson sphere prediction is like predictions in the 1800s how we would have coal and steam powered airships to travel around.
The reality is that steam via coal fire is too inefficient. Coal is just too heavy. Jet fuel is much more efficient/energy dense and not need to build giant airships.
Same with any advanced civilization. Dyson spheres just don't make sense, but they sure make good sci-fi movies/stories for the gullible.
"do fusion efficiently locally" - with what? The vast majority of available fuel is in the stars.
Dyson spheres are different than planet size civilization. For planet size civilization, with population in the order of billions/trillions ppl, local fusion is probably good enough. But for populations a billion times bigger, so billions of billions of ppl, you need dyson spheres, or alternatively, a way to destroy stars and get the raw hydrogen - probably harder to do.
It's worth noting "Dyson Sphere" is a product of sci-fi literature. Freeman Dyson himself only described an "artificial biosphere" in some paper he published, sci-fi authors mistook him literally (or were just being creative). He wasn't even describing anything resembling a physical sphere surrounding a star.
He speaks to the subject in this excellent interview playlist, link is to the specific Dyson Sphere part:
The ingredients for fusion reactors (deuterium, tritium and helium-3) are rare, not fully reacted intermediate byproducts of the proton-proton cycle that powers the sun.
The likeliest case for a Dyson Sphere civilization would be some sort of solar powered Gray Goo von Neumann replicator.
I'm not clear what is meant by "inefficient at energy release". Does that mean that the in the process of energy release, some of the energy is converted into heat? I.e., more energy?
Presumably if your super-advanced civilization needed more energy than could be fused from all the matter in a planet, you would have to get it from a star.
I'm right here with you, love the haters too that downvote you. The real takeaway is simply this: we don't (and can't) KNOW what type of energy advanced civilizations will have (and we might not even be able to understand it if we saw it!), and collective scientific time is much better spent on things that we DO know, like searching for bio markers similar to earth.
Surely a Dyson sphere would not emit what we naively expect. Look at us, we can speculate about these and even try to spot them but are millennia away from building one.
What if the external shield of the sphere would be artificially heated to 4000K or higher ? Completely invisible.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but is there actually enough raw material in the solar system to cover the surface of our star and build the necessary machinery to keep it in place, collect its energy, etc.?
The only conclusion we should make right now is that the Dyson Sphere doesn't exist and we're the only intelligent life in the Universe, which makes it all more terrifying.
What kind of eugenics are you proposing? I know that the notion of eugenics has got a bad rap but I'm a bit concerned with your wording because it seems to indicate that you have in mind the kind of eugenics that gives the whole notion a bad rap.
When you say 'we could do some eugenics' do you mean the kind of top down, centrally planned by absurd edict shit that we saw from central Europe in the early 20th century that was influenced by North American culture that lingered well into the mid 20th century?[0]
Or do you mean the kind of self empowered eugenics of the late 20th century where women found themselves with newfound means to decide their reproduce destiny for themselves?
What are your thoughts on the burgeoning 21st century development where currently upperclass people are finding themselves in the economically viable position to select and potentially modify embryos for implantation?
How do you think that we as a society should bridge the gap between where we are now with eugenics and where we could be, and how does that tie into where you think we could go as a species either interplanetary or beyond?
If there's anything I've learned from software engineering, it's that ideas seem like good ideas until they're implemented. Something seems like a good gene to select for until 3 generations later where someone else has to deal with it.
The other thing that fascinates me is navel oranges. They're delicious, but they're sterile and come with defects (the navel). We're perfectly happy to deal with those defects because the benefits outweigh it. I wonder what defects come from radiation resistant supermen.
It seems to me that human potential can be better realised in many ways, and eugenics is the way with probably the worst return on investment.
For a start, we could try giving as many kids as possible in the world a decent crack at doing something important. Obviously this is very difficult and complicated. But then so is eugenics.
My favorite line of reasoning about eugenics[0]: let's just accept that eugenics is a good thing; so good, in fact, we can go back in time and give a past society the ability to decide on the physical and mental attributes of their future, our present. Who would you pick? Would you go back 50, 100, 200, 500 years to gift this power?
If you're uncomfortable with people several hundred years ago making decisions about your genetics, why should people several hundred years from now be comfortable with you making decisions about theirs?
I’ve been doing a lot of reading on megastructures, giant black hole powered computers, Von Neumann probes, and all the other super advanced technologies, and then thinking about the Fermi paradox, and I can’t shake the feeling these are just gussied up magic by effectively godlike entities. They’re completely impractical and take some pretty big hand waving to make them sound plausible.
We’re running out of excuses. We’re either alone, or we’re effectively alone ie everyone else is forever undetectable. Meaning they’re more primitive, or stuck in some subterranean ocean or something. Either way, we’re the Ancients sci-fi stories ale we ya talk about.
> We’re either alone, or we’re effectively alone ie everyone else is forever undetectable.
Native tribes could be forgiven for assuming they were alone until explorers and conquistadors arrived.
It’s possible that a civilization millions (or billions) of years ahead of us in biology, energy, philosophy, etc. is just beyond our comprehension at this moment to even know what to look for, where or how.
Plus, we already try to make things hard to find like stealth fighters. Perhaps it’s a good idea for survival in the universe to be difficult to find.
But why would they leave the same artifacts over and over again? Seems like a pretty boring existence for a "god". We've got blackholes, magnetars, pulsars, binary stars... and... that's about it... Seems much more likely these structures are the end result of some fixed set of physical rules than insane gods trapsing around the universe.
Also agreeing with one of the comments above about how mind bogglingly massive space is, we've been effectively "listening" to space for only about 100 years, which creates an effective "listening sphere" of 4.188×10E6 light years^3, or 0.000524% of the milkyway's EIGHT TRILLION cubic lightyears in size (even if we could listen to all directions simultaneously, which we can't!)
I mean, we've been listening to the Wow! area for 50 years now, which also hampers the kind of electromagnetic 'sweep' we could possible be doing in the meanwhile.
My overall opinion is that it's just simple not been enough time of listening.
Actually this idea seems quite interesting, it would be cool to do the calculus to figure out our effective "increase" in contact intersection as each consective second, minute, hour, day, and year goes by as we "listen" to space. Infinite overlapping spheres in an infinite 3D space... hmmmm
Space is big. Like, really big. The galaxy could have a million civilizations more powerful than you could imagine, and there is no reason why we would necessarily be able to see any of them.
That assumes we would even be able to recognize one if we could see it.
[+] [-] dr_dshiv|4 years ago|reply
He didn’t hesitate. He said we need to teach children genetic engineering to children in such a way that they could approach it playfully. Only then would we have a chance of developing warm blooded plants which would be essential for colonizing the asteroid belt.
So, if anyone has any ideas for that…!
[+] [-] fullstackchris|4 years ago|reply
I think most people "like" the idea because it's so tangible. But that doesn't make it any more or less likely that it actually exists or makes sense.
[+] [-] colordrops|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabbo|4 years ago|reply
Let's presume that the universe is full of Dyson Spheres, and the gravity they produce is what we call "Dark Matter". Well, Dyson Spheres must be built, right? So earlier in time, there would be fewer of them, and later in time there would be more of them.
When we look into the sky, we look back in time. So if this were the case, when we look backwards in time we should see more brightness and less dark matter effects, while closer in time we should see less brightness and more dark matter effects.
We do not see those patterns. Dark matter is consistent over time, as far as we can tell, and brightness from stars remains what we would expect.
[+] [-] ncmncm|4 years ago|reply
Any sort of Dyson-spherish thing would radiate in infrared, and not be dark at all. A long time ago somebody went looking for these infrared emitters, and found billions (and billions) of them in our galaxy alone. Turns out low-grade infrared-emitting stars and star-like things are more common than dirt. There is no way to tell them apart from a hypothetical Dyson thingy, even if there were any actual reason ever to build one of those. (Which, hint, there isn't.)
[+] [-] awb|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxander|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buryat|4 years ago|reply
and the dark matter is everywhere (almost, there're galaxies without it) which would mean that most of the universe has intelligent life but then why there's no other signals? something should've leaked/pointed at it
[+] [-] nyx|4 years ago|reply
Jokes aside, is there really any practical value in this sort of research, or is it the kind of thing that we do because it's interesting and kinda cool? Don't get me wrong, I think it's valuable for that alone, but...
[+] [-] wesleywt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] captainmuon|4 years ago|reply
Also I think science works the way that you use your fantasy to come up with outlandish things, and then try to rule them out with logic.
[+] [-] tannhauser23|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tapas73|4 years ago|reply
Once it is done, possibly much much much later, somebody may stumble upon it and use it in some creative (and unforseen) ways for other research.
On the other hand if you give any probability to alien existence, then this is very much practical already in the search for them.
[+] [-] JuettnerDistrib|4 years ago|reply
In many ways it is too early to do this research, so it is a kind of art (as is a lot of research, imho). As long as only a few people do it, it's cool and useful so we can be aware of our potential future.
On the other hand, since we have no credible evidence of extraterrestrials, it would be surprising to find a civilisation so advanced to build a Dyson sphere. If they can build Dyson spheres, wouldn't they already be all over the place?
Ok, I suppose I should actually go read the paper now...
[+] [-] dnsco|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TheDudeMan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kragen|4 years ago|reply
It's difficult to imagine a discovery that would have more practical import than the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilization.
[+] [-] Apocryphon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mickdarling|4 years ago|reply
The signal this would create to an outside observer I think would significantly change the heat signature and periodic changes, depending on our observation angle to the star.
[+] [-] denton-scratch|4 years ago|reply
It gets converted into other kinds of energy, and eventually becomes waste energy, ending up as low-grade heat. Hence the search for infra-red sources. But the amount of energy that a Dyson sphere absorbs must be equal to the amount of low-grade heat it radiates; so I'd expect a Dyson sphere to be very bright in infra-red - much brighter than brown or red dwarfs.
Such an object should be quite easy to spot.
[+] [-] ardit33|4 years ago|reply
Any advanced form of civilization that can build one, probably figured how to do fusion efficiently locally and doesn't have to build these insanely inefficient energy harversters.
Keep in mind that the sun is very inefficient at energy release.
Dyson sphere prediction is like predictions in the 1800s how we would have coal and steam powered airships to travel around.
The reality is that steam via coal fire is too inefficient. Coal is just too heavy. Jet fuel is much more efficient/energy dense and not need to build giant airships.
Same with any advanced civilization. Dyson spheres just don't make sense, but they sure make good sci-fi movies/stories for the gullible.
[+] [-] empiricus|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pengaru|4 years ago|reply
He speaks to the subject in this excellent interview playlist, link is to the specific Dyson Sphere part:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPB775_BZlw&list=PLVV0r6CmEs...
[+] [-] AprilArcus|4 years ago|reply
The likeliest case for a Dyson Sphere civilization would be some sort of solar powered Gray Goo von Neumann replicator.
[+] [-] TheDudeMan|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgillen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] denton-scratch|4 years ago|reply
I'm not clear what is meant by "inefficient at energy release". Does that mean that the in the process of energy release, some of the energy is converted into heat? I.e., more energy?
[+] [-] jallen_dot_dev|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fullstackchris|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ordu|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] juloo|4 years ago|reply
What if the external shield of the sphere would be artificially heated to 4000K or higher ? Completely invisible.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bbarn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] buryat|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gfodor|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] azernik|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jimbonius|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Teever|4 years ago|reply
When you say 'we could do some eugenics' do you mean the kind of top down, centrally planned by absurd edict shit that we saw from central Europe in the early 20th century that was influenced by North American culture that lingered well into the mid 20th century?[0]
Or do you mean the kind of self empowered eugenics of the late 20th century where women found themselves with newfound means to decide their reproduce destiny for themselves?
What are your thoughts on the burgeoning 21st century development where currently upperclass people are finding themselves in the economically viable position to select and potentially modify embryos for implantation?
How do you think that we as a society should bridge the gap between where we are now with eugenics and where we could be, and how does that tie into where you think we could go as a species either interplanetary or beyond?
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_Training_School
[+] [-] muzani|4 years ago|reply
The other thing that fascinates me is navel oranges. They're delicious, but they're sterile and come with defects (the navel). We're perfectly happy to deal with those defects because the benefits outweigh it. I wonder what defects come from radiation resistant supermen.
[+] [-] Gatsky|4 years ago|reply
It seems to me that human potential can be better realised in many ways, and eugenics is the way with probably the worst return on investment.
For a start, we could try giving as many kids as possible in the world a decent crack at doing something important. Obviously this is very difficult and complicated. But then so is eugenics.
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30394933.
[+] [-] twright0|4 years ago|reply
If you're uncomfortable with people several hundred years ago making decisions about your genetics, why should people several hundred years from now be comfortable with you making decisions about theirs?
[0] https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/eugenics-is-a-great-idea
[+] [-] dillondoyle|4 years ago|reply
Seems we could accomplish the same thing or better with science and genetic engineering.
While likely still restricted to the rich - at least at first - it doesn't have the oppression side to it.
But that thought experiment can go too far too. like elites giving themselves more and creating an even more lopsided world.
[+] [-] galaxyLogic|4 years ago|reply
https://youtu.be/YtZqNAI4pBk?t=93
[+] [-] tapland|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teh_infallible|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathankoren|4 years ago|reply
We’re running out of excuses. We’re either alone, or we’re effectively alone ie everyone else is forever undetectable. Meaning they’re more primitive, or stuck in some subterranean ocean or something. Either way, we’re the Ancients sci-fi stories ale we ya talk about.
[+] [-] awb|4 years ago|reply
Native tribes could be forgiven for assuming they were alone until explorers and conquistadors arrived.
It’s possible that a civilization millions (or billions) of years ahead of us in biology, energy, philosophy, etc. is just beyond our comprehension at this moment to even know what to look for, where or how.
Plus, we already try to make things hard to find like stealth fighters. Perhaps it’s a good idea for survival in the universe to be difficult to find.
[+] [-] fullstackchris|4 years ago|reply
Also agreeing with one of the comments above about how mind bogglingly massive space is, we've been effectively "listening" to space for only about 100 years, which creates an effective "listening sphere" of 4.188×10E6 light years^3, or 0.000524% of the milkyway's EIGHT TRILLION cubic lightyears in size (even if we could listen to all directions simultaneously, which we can't!)
I mean, we've been listening to the Wow! area for 50 years now, which also hampers the kind of electromagnetic 'sweep' we could possible be doing in the meanwhile.
My overall opinion is that it's just simple not been enough time of listening.
Actually this idea seems quite interesting, it would be cool to do the calculus to figure out our effective "increase" in contact intersection as each consective second, minute, hour, day, and year goes by as we "listen" to space. Infinite overlapping spheres in an infinite 3D space... hmmmm
[+] [-] ncmncm|4 years ago|reply
That assumes we would even be able to recognize one if we could see it.