Are the Dyson rings around pulsars detectable?Z. Osmanov(Submitted on 11 May 2017 (v1), last revised 12 May 2017 (this version, v2))In the previous paper (Osmanov 2016) (henceforth Paper-I) we have extended the idea of Freeman Dyson and have shown that a supercivilization has to use ring-like megastructures around pulsars instead of a spherical shell. In this work we reexamine the same problem in the observational context and we show that facilities of modern IR telescopes (VLTI and WISE) might efficiently monitor the nearby zone of the solar system and search for the IR Dyson-rings up to distances of the order of 0.2kpc, corresponding to the current highest achievable angular resolution, 0.001mas. In this case the total number of pulsars in the observationally reachable area is about 64±21. We show that pulsars from the distance of the order of ∼1kpc are still visible for WISE as point-like sources but in order to confirm that the object is the neutron star, one has to use the UV telescopes, which at this moment cannot provide enough sensitivity.
Why isn't a back yard commercial consumer telescope enough to detect another 20% dip in the light curve of that star? Hasn't it been something which hundreds of part time astronomers have been looking for constantly since the anomaly was announced, without finding anything to corroborate it?I don't see how Kepler's anomaly motivates any redirection of any major telescopes or observation efforts.
In the past, the discovery of one bizarre object has often heralded a new class of phenomena. So, if history is any indication, Boyajian's Star may be just the beginning.
BBC has a nice roundup on Boyajian's star http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170512-the-most-mysterious-star-in-the-galaxyNothing really new for people who have been following the story closely, but good quotes from some of the main players. It also touches on the question of why there is interest in continued observation:QuoteIn the past, the discovery of one bizarre object has often heralded a new class of phenomena. So, if history is any indication, Boyajian's Star may be just the beginning.
Well, it has been observed for years. And there's nothing to report.
And history tells us that one-off freak observations like this are perytons, the result of an observatory observing itself.
ALERT: @tsboyajian's star is dipping This is not a drill. Astro tweeps on telescopes in the next 48 hours: spectra please!
Well, things are getting interesting: https://twitter.com/Astro_Wright/status/865528682114203648QuoteALERT: @tsboyajian's star is dipping This is not a drill. Astro tweeps on telescopes in the next 48 hours: spectra please!
Am I understanding correctly then that the 800 dip can be explained as a regular shaped object passing in front of the star, but that the ingress and egress halves look different due to the object picking up speed as it slingshots around the star, and so completing the egress faster than the ingress?Am I also understanding correctly that the authors calculate the orbital speed to be too slow assuming the object is so close to the star? How did they reach these conclusions? What are the starting assumptions for the supposed transiting object?
I'd guess people have ToO programs at several telescopes for this? Or maybe there's some frenetic DDT proposal writing going on.
Twitter would go down today of all days. Been trying to contact people to get the message out.
Tabetha Boyajian @tsboyajianHey @SOFIAtelescope what is the turn around time for a DDT? #TabbysStar is acting up right now! @AllPlanets
Tabetha Boyajian @tsboyajianReplying to @ajebson and 10 othersits 2% in r' band and looks like its the start
The prediction simply comes from the assumption that the two large dips seen in the kepler data are from the same orbiting object (though the dip profiles look nothing alike, it is the best we have to work with). So if dip 1 occurred at Kepler day 792 and the middle of the large complex of dips is day 1540, then the orbital period would be the difference between these: 748 days. Therefore, IF the dips 1 and 2 come from the same orbiting source, then we would expect the 3rd big dip at (1540+748)=2288 days and the 4th to be at (2288+748) = 3036 days. Then add 2454833 to convert "kepler day" to "Barycentric Julian day", we get time for the predicted dip 4 at BJD=2457869. Last step is to use the JD converter to figure out what this means to anyone but a computer . http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/JulianDate.php We were not monitor the sky when dip#3 would have occurred in April of 2015, but dip 4 is predicted to be at the end of April, 2017. Again, this all lies on the assumption that the large dips we see are from the same object passing in front of us and the star - and this is not necessarily the case. But for now, this is the best guess. ~Tabby