Author Topic: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion  (Read 32541 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« on: 11/25/2016 11:40 PM »
Is currently being observed by the Allen Telescope Array.

http://setiquest.info

Only reached a pretty common on 2.
« Last Edit: 11/26/2016 10:21 AM by Star One »

Offline Req

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 272
  • Liked: 193
  • Likes Given: 2313
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #1 on: 11/26/2016 06:46 PM »
I suppose if we're going to be arbitrary about naming this star, I hereby declare it Req's star!  Thread #3(or is it 4) incoming!

Edit so that this post isn't pure snark, for searches:

KIC 8462852
KIC8462852
Tabby's Star
Tabbys Star
« Last Edit: 11/27/2016 01:02 AM by Req »

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #2 on: 11/26/2016 07:00 PM »
The main problem with the previous thread is that it seems to be undergoing an extreme dimming event so that it's not even observable any more.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #3 on: 11/26/2016 07:27 PM »
I suppose if we're going to be arbitrary about naming this star, I hereby declare it Req's star!  Thread #3(or is it 4) incoming!

This name has been applied to be its official name I believe.

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #4 on: 11/26/2016 10:21 PM »
The main problem with the previous thread is that it seems to be undergoing an extreme dimming event so that it's not even observable any more.
Lol - I see what you did there...
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #5 on: 11/28/2016 07:13 PM »
Not strictly related but can anyone explain the significance of this new Tweet by Jason Wright?

Quote
Jason Wright   ‏@Astro_Wright

@EricMamajek Now that we have a TGAS distance & space motion, is it weird that TYC 8830-410-1 has a big IR excess?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...15C

This is the only reference I can find and it's a little old.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015sofi.prop..130S
« Last Edit: 11/28/2016 07:17 PM by Star One »

Offline Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 499
  • England
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #6 on: 11/28/2016 10:47 PM »
Well this is just a guess but; often when you are talking about a star's position and motion through the galaxy you are using it as a proxy for age.  I would assume what he's alluding to is the space motion implies it comes from an old population, one which shouldn't be undergoing a LHB to keep the dust hot.
« Last Edit: 11/30/2016 08:34 AM by Alpha_Centauri »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #7 on: 11/28/2016 10:50 PM »
Not strictly related but can anyone explain the significance of this new Tweet by Jason Wright?

Quote
Jason Wright   ‏@Astro_Wright

@EricMamajek Now that we have a TGAS distance & space motion, is it weird that TYC 8830-410-1 has a big IR excess?
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJS..225...15C

This is the only reference I can find and it's a little old.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015sofi.prop..130S

Eric Mamajek is an expert on circumstellar disks and planetary formation.  I don't know if he has commented on Tabby's star anywhere.  The tweet looks like it was an "inside" message from Wright, who is looking for mechanisms to explain the lack of IR excess around Tabby's star, to an expert who has contributed to the knowledge base of transient warm disks around stars like TYC 8830-410-1.

Is Wright looking for confirmation or issuing a challenge?   I don't know.  Lately he seems to favor the ISM as the reason for dimming of Tabby's star, but that still leaves the problem of IR excess.   Maybe Wright is postulating that depending on the clumpiness of the ISM, and the proper motion of Tabby's star relative the the motion if the ISM, you could get IR excess only when a big dimming event is happening.   Then it is gone after the event, and any dust farther out of the system is cold, and would not produce the IR flux missing at Tabby's star?  Eric Mamajek is the type of expert that may have something to say about that.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #8 on: 11/28/2016 10:52 PM »
Well this is just a guess but; often when you are talking about a star's position and motion through the galaxy you are using it as a proxy for age.  I would assume what he's alluding to is the space motion implies it comes from an old population, one which shouldn't be undergoing an LHB to keep the dust hot.

People keep wanting alien megastructures well if it was one of them it could be giving off a huge excess of IR. It does throw you into that territory if you get something like this around an older star.

I did wonder if he was alluding to its age so thanks for the thoughts on that.

He's has had a reply now.

Quote
Eric Mamajek   ‏@EricMamajek

@Astro_Wright @steinly0 I'll be visiting your dept Wed am - can chat then on this object
« Last Edit: 11/28/2016 10:57 PM by Star One »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #9 on: 11/28/2016 11:01 PM »
By the way there's a new paper on the star that is the topic of this thread.

A physically inspired model of Dip d792 and d1519 of the Kepler light curve seen at KIC8462852

Quote
The star KIC 8462852 shows a very unusual and hard to comprehend light curve. The dip d7922 absorbs 16% of the starlight. The light curve is unusually smooth but the very steep edges make it hard to find a simple natural explanation by covering due to comets or other well-known planetary objects. We describe a mathematical approximation to the light curve, which is motivated by a physically meaningful event of a large stellar beam which generates an orbiting cloud. The data might fit to the science fiction idea of star lifting, a mining technology that could extract star matter. We extend the model to d1519 and d1568 using multiple beams and get an encouraging result that fits essential parts of the dips but misses other parts of the measured flux. We recommend further exploration of this concept with refined models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08368

I believe this is going up for peer review as well.

There is also this Where's The Flux update.

http://www.wherestheflux.com/single-post/2016/11/28/October-science-update-Part-II

One thing to note is it's going to be observed by Swift.
« Last Edit: 11/28/2016 11:07 PM by Star One »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #10 on: 11/29/2016 01:19 AM »
From the paper by Eduard Heindl at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08368
Quote
3. The Model

The main aim of this paper is a physical model for the flux variation of the dip at day 792.
The model is based on the idea, that a stream of matter leaves the star into space similar as
observed in solar flares. The difference is, the stream of matter is quite high and lifts the
matter into a stable orbit. It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of this
event in detail.

Bold & underline is my addition.

The beam model was briefly discussed in the "WTF" thread.  The fit of the model to the data is interesting.   The paper would have done itself a favor if it ended after section 5.    The last 2 pages does exactly what it said was not the aim, which was to bring in the ETI hypothesis as the explanation for the mechanics of the dimming.

It would be interesting to see how the paper gets reviewed if all reference to star lifting was scrubbed.  It have the feeling it would be like the EM Drive threads where current work on EM drives show some resultant force without any basis in physics as is currently understood to offer an explanation of how it works.

I think the paper may also suffer from some language barriers.  The proposal of a lifted beam ( or CME) with a trail of "smoke" makes no sense.   What becomes of a CME when it condenses, or is no longer ejected plasma?

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #11 on: 11/29/2016 05:54 AM »
From the paper by Eduard Heindl at:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08368
Quote
3. The Model

The main aim of this paper is a physical model for the flux variation of the dip at day 792.
The model is based on the idea, that a stream of matter leaves the star into space similar as
observed in solar flares. The difference is, the stream of matter is quite high and lifts the
matter into a stable orbit. It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of this
event in detail.

Bold & underline is my addition.

The beam model was briefly discussed in the "WTF" thread.  The fit of the model to the data is interesting.   The paper would have done itself a favor if it ended after section 5.    The last 2 pages does exactly what it said was not the aim, which was to bring in the ETI hypothesis as the explanation for the mechanics of the dimming.

It would be interesting to see how the paper gets reviewed if all reference to star lifting was scrubbed.  It have the feeling it would be like the EM Drive threads where current work on EM drives show some resultant force without any basis in physics as is currently understood to offer an explanation of how it works.

I think the paper may also suffer from some language barriers.  The proposal of a lifted beam ( or CME) with a trail of "smoke" makes no sense.   What becomes of a CME when it condenses, or is no longer ejected plasma?

Why would the author delete such sections when it's clear that's one of the topics he wants to discuss.

Just because you may happen to not to agree with this hypothesis does not mean that such a debate should be stifled.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2016 05:56 AM by Star One »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #12 on: 11/29/2016 06:34 AM »

Why would the author delete such sections when it's clear that's one of the topics he wants to discuss.

Just because you may happen to not to agree with this hypothesis does not mean that such a debate should be stifled.

The author, Mr. Heindl, said that "It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of this
event in detail",...
and he then went about doing just that by including all the speculation on starlifting by ETI's. 

I'm OK with speculation on starlifting,  I don't want to stifle anything,  however his paper forfeits congruity by saying one thing and then doing another.  I think the paper may be more interesting if he would have focused on demonstrating the strong fit of modeling a "beam" of matter extended from the stars surface as the mechanism of the dimming, and leave out all ETI speculation.  The paper will likely be dismissed by serious academics for including these claims that would better off bifurcated & discussed separate from the ETI hypothesis.

It is logically more palatable to just make supportable proposals as to what the source of the dimming might be, when the more controversial argument is the cause. (i.e ETI's) 

The same goes for J. Wrights proposal for ISM/bok globules.   The body of knowledge regarding the internal structure of bok globules or other ISM is pretty sparse.   However each proposal has to first demonstrate it can "model" the dimming, and then subsequent predictions for future observations can test the hypothesis.




Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #13 on: 11/29/2016 06:46 AM »

Why would the author delete such sections when it's clear that's one of the topics he wants to discuss.

Just because you may happen to not to agree with this hypothesis does not mean that such a debate should be stifled.

The author, Mr. Heindl, said that "It is not the aim of this paper to speculate for the mechanic of this
event in detail",...
and he then went about doing just that by including all the speculation on starlifting by ETI's. 

I'm OK with speculation on starlifting,  I don't want to stifle anything,  however his paper forfeits congruity by saying one thing and then doing another.  I think the paper may be more interesting if he would have focused on demonstrating the strong fit of modeling a "beam" of matter extended from the stars surface as the mechanism of the dimming, and leave out all ETI speculation.  The paper will likely be dismissed by serious academics for including these claims that would better off bifurcated & discussed separate from the ETI hypothesis.

It is logically more palatable to just make supportable proposals as to what the source of the dimming might be, when the more controversial argument is the cause. (i.e ETI's) 

The same goes for J. Wrights proposal for ISM/bok globules.   The body of knowledge regarding the internal structure of bok globules or other ISM is pretty sparse.   However each proposal has to first demonstrate it can "model" the dimming, and then subsequent predictions for future observations can test the hypothesis.

Again you have not answered the point why shouldn't they at least discuss these matters other to confirm to some kind of institutional bias.

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #14 on: 11/29/2016 02:31 PM »

Again you have not answered the point why shouldn't they at least discuss these matters other to confirm to some kind of institutional bias.
I gave 4 reasons why the paper would have been better off by omitting ETI speculation. 

If one submits a paper on the arvix server and invites review and criticism, it might be a better approach to stick to your best argument.   Confronting the institutional bias against ETI's is not likely helpful in getting the main argument heard & reviewed with any respect.


Offline TakeOff

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 317
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #15 on: 11/29/2016 07:46 PM »
There used to be a long thread here about the WTF star. But that seems to suddenly have dipped down by 100% without any kind of explanation. Maybe there's a filter here?

In that thread I were convinced that this kind of dimmings where astrophysical and had nothing to do with human actions or software bugs on Earth. But this sudden total disappearance of one specific thread here kind of confounds me. Was it maybe a binary neutron star merger that caused it? Is there any secondary observation to confirm it?
« Last Edit: 11/29/2016 07:49 PM by TakeOff »

Offline as58

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Liked: 197
  • Likes Given: 138
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #16 on: 11/29/2016 07:55 PM »
I believe human actions or software bugs on Earth are good candidates for this second kind of dimming. But in common with the stellar brightness fluctuations, the phenomenon seems to be impossible to predict in advance.
« Last Edit: 11/29/2016 08:02 PM by as58 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6771
  • UK
  • Liked: 1091
  • Likes Given: 152
Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #17 on: 12/03/2016 09:52 PM »
Same old, same old.

A not unexpected null result.

Quote
RADIO SETI OBSERVATIONS OF THE ANOMALOUS STAR KIC 8462852
G. R. Harp1, Jon Richards1, Seth Shostak1, J. C. Tarter1, Douglas A. Vakoch1,2, and Chris Munson1
Published 2016 July 13 2016. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.
The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 825, Number 2

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/0004-637X/825/2/155
« Last Edit: 12/03/2016 09:52 PM by Star One »

Offline Stan-1967

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Denver, Colorado
  • Liked: 221
  • Likes Given: 143
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #18 on: 12/04/2016 09:19 PM »
I understand it is necessary to put limits on the speculation regarding advanced civlizations around Tabby's star, but I do kind of lament the uselessness of the effort, as well as how it will likely be misused by skeptics to say that the Allen array looked for a signal and didn't detect anything, therefore the ETI hypothesis is disproven.

From the article:

Quote
These limits correspond to isotropic radio transmitter powers of (47) 1015 W and 1019 W for the narrowband and moderate band observations. These can be compared with Earth's strongest transmitters, including the Arecibo Observatory's planetary radar (2 1013 W EIRP). Clearly, the energy demands for a detectable signal from KIC 8462852 are far higher than this terrestrial example (largely as a consequence of the distance of this star). On the other hand, these energy requirements could be very substantially reduced if the emissions were beamed in our direction.

So the observation rules out transmissions that greater than a petawatt or exawatt scale isotropic source.   There is no way to make any assessment of the ETI hypothesis from the observation, as a nullification or in support.  It just "is what it is".   

I just hope the next dimming event is caught by multiple ground and space based observatories.   

Offline Johnnyhinbos

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 783
  • Boston, MA
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Boyajians Star Updates And Discussion
« Reply #19 on: 12/04/2016 09:24 PM »
We're talking about events that happened 1,400 years ago, is this correct?
John Hanzl. Author, action / adventure www.johnhanzl.com

Tags: