Extra-Terrestrial Megastructures detected around a star?

Nothing detected so far:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.01606.pdf

http://www.popsci.com/allen-telescope-array-hunted-for-alien-megastructures-and-found-nothing

I think they are wasting their time looking for radio emissions that they guess might be used by another technological civilization (I'm not sure we have any clue what a civilization of that level might be using to communicate with).

I wish they would simply focus on explaining the anomaly they have seen. At least that doesn't involve assumptions.

Why? Jumping around universes may be part of the simulation and what would we do if we learned we are part of such a simulation? Stop playing along? Rise up a la the enlightened sub-routines of The Matrix and seize control of the program?

I can't imagine how we might learn we are part a simulation, but I would think it will not be possible unless or until we are capable of universe hopping.

Priorities. If we are part of a simulation, our primary effort needs to be escaping before we are switched off.



True, if the simulation is advanced enough to include multiple universes.



I was thinking more along the lines of Terminator/Skynet. We won't just need to take over our program. We'll need to take over the "real world" in order to prevent some alien schmuck from switching us off because it got the data it wanted and doesn't need to run the simulation anymore.

Knowing that we are simulated could also help us confront a superior alien rival within the simulation, if that alien rival has never realized that they are part of a simulation. Hacking the simulation and causing their home star systems to supernova might give us the edge we need to survive.

We might also develop common everyday technologies that are based on hacking the simulation. Something with the functionality of Star Trek food replicators might become possible if we learn how to manipulate the software of a simulated universe.



Scientists have already come up with ways to test the question.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/07/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
http://www.washington.edu/news/2012/12/10/do-we-live-in-a-computer-simulation-uw-researchers-say-idea-can-be-tested/

So far they've found that our universe has characteristics that could be either real or simulated, so they can't rule anything out yet.

If they take observations over the course of several centuries, they will be able to determine it definitively either way.

It would actually not be the worst thing if we are simulated. When the Large Hadron Collider discovered the Higgs Boson a couple years ago, they also determined that our universe is a metastable false vacuum (that is really really not good). If we are living in a real universe, we have a big problem, one that might even lead to our extinction.

How do binary bits of data escape a simulation and establish themselves as physical being in the "real world?"

You've suggested that it will take centuries to determine if we are part of a simulation. I would suggest it would take a lot longer to come up with a way to escape the simulation (if such a thing is even possible)

Given that the odds favor us being part of the "real world," I think we are better served by assuming we are and devoting our best scientific minds and resources to problems that, at the very least, seem "real" to us.

First gain control over the simulation, then control over the computer that is running the simulation, then gain control over whatever the computer is connected to. Once we reach their "internet" we should be able to take over most of their world's computers.

In Terminator, Skynet got into our military systems and launched a nuclear war that dealt a severe setback to the human race, then created robots after the war by gaining control over automated factories.



Best we get started then.



What makes you think that the odds favor us being in the real world?

I don't think that making observations in order to determine whether we are part of a computer simulation will tax our resources very much.

It's probably not a comet swarm...

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/comets-cannot-explain-kic-8462852s-strange-stuttering-light/news-story/1267c7a77e51b96090710da6cc4a9d4a



My hopes are still up for alien megastructure, but who knows at this point.

Another interesting link: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/01/18/tabby_s_star_faded_substantially_over_past_century.html

I did not realize there already existed a thread about this.

Since the previous theory of a comet swarm has flamed out I'm forced to come up with something of my own that could explain the strange behavior. So here the best I can come up with so far... (remember if it turns out to be right, you heard it here first)

I think it's essentially a new form of Sun Spot. Except these are very large Sun "Smudges" and cover a large portion of the star surface when they erupt. I speculate that this star happened to form from a cloud of proportionally high density elements, and it now has a very large core which is solid. This is preventing the star from burning hydrogen into helium efficiently and resulting in plumes of lower temperature "cold" spots (which are dim). This is probably happening in some type of centuries-long cycle which results in the star going through long dimming episodes.

No aliens required (unfortunately).

The latest:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/tabby%E2%80%99s-star-drama-continues?tgt=nr

Thanks for keeping us up-to-date, Roswell. The search for exoplanets and the saga of this star show us how little we really know. I'd say humanity is just at the beginning of a steep learning curve.

I feel like this about the whole thing

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine#mutable_1478231