The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums





Astronomers may have found giant alien 'megastructures' orbiting star near the Milky
#11
(10-18-2015, 05:15 AM)stevebowers Wrote: But there appear to be eight of them; could there be four double planets in a single system?

Well, maybe. I mean there is nothing theoretically impossible about it.
But its still like throwing 8 coins and all of them landed on edge.
Reply
#12
(10-18-2015, 05:18 AM)stevebowers Wrote: Maybe some of the planets have very big and very dense ring systems.

Sorta like 1SWASP J140747.93-394542.6, maybe.

[Image: 601px-1SWASP_J1407_and_J1407B_to_scale.png]

I recall that was discussed around here a while back.
Reply
#13
(10-18-2015, 05:15 AM)stevebowers Wrote: One possibility I have considered is that some of these planets are double objects- maybe rocheworlds. But there appear to be eight of them; could there be four double planets in a single system?

There could, but it seems no more likely than artificially constructed megastructures.
Reply
#14
Here's Anders Sandberg's take on the subject.
http://gizmodo.com/what-are-the-odds-of-...1737529525

He thinks that the idea of a 'half-built' or partial Dyson swarm is unlikely; his argument seems to be that once you start building one, you will carry on until you use most available solid elements in the system. I can't really agree - not every civilisation would be desperate to maximise the utility of their system in this way- some will just use enough to power whatever temporary projects are deemed necessary.
Reply
#15
Anders expands on his reasoning in this article.
http://aleph.se/andart2/space/likely-not...icrodyson/
I still think that a Partial Dyson is a long-term possibility.
Reply
#16
(10-21-2015, 06:54 AM)stevebowers Wrote: Anders expands on his reasoning in this article.
http://aleph.se/andart2/space/likely-not...icrodyson/
I still think that a Partial Dyson is a long-term possibility.
What about collapsed Dyson? I mean, do we know how do remnants of destroyed Dyson Sphere look?
Reply
#17
Perhaps partial Dysons are much more common as "full" ones. I mean even a partial Dyson would astronomically outcompute the entire human race. If we assume a Mercury mass Dyson and nanotech computronium working at 10e20 flops per kg (a very conservative estimate just for the sake of the argument) we get 10e43 flops. Assuming only 1/1000 of the mass is used for computation and 99.9% for support infrastructure this still leaves us with 10e40 flops. Even if we assume a zettaflop (10e21 flops) for a human brain equivalent (again very conservative) we are left with the computing power of 10e19 human brains or a billion times humanity. Even if building a full Dyson takes just a hundred years the partial dyson would experience the progress of the lifetime of the universe in this time (assuming just running the minds faster und leaving aside any improvements of the computronium and the growth of computronium mass). It is not hard to imagine they would come up with technologies that transcends nanotech Dyson nodes. As there are no galaxies that got transformed completely we can assume that Dyson nodes are either very rarely or never built by advanced civilisations (because if a civ builds one there is no reason why it can't build 1 billion), that there are no advanced civs or that Dyson nodes are simply not the pinnacle of technological evolution (which is my favourite explanation of course). Thoughts?
Reply
#18
(10-21-2015, 06:31 AM)stevebowers Wrote: Here's Anders Sandberg's take on the subject.
http://gizmodo.com/what-are-the-odds-of-...1737529525

I read through this today and I also don't find the logic convincing, I'm afraid. Mostly because it seems to be based on a series of assumptions that 'ain't necessarily so'. In no particular order:

Assumption: Population must grow to fill any environment to the maximum possible.

This is an old notion that is itself probably at least part of the basis for the idea of a dyson sphere in the first place. However, this idea ignores or dismisses a much simpler technology - birth control. Anders talks in terms of dismantling a solar system in decades to centuries. But the same tech that allows you to do this (nanotech presumably, ala the tech described for Matrioshka Brain construction) also is generally considered to have major impacts in medicine, including extreme life extension, or even immortality. And perfect birth control would seem a logical follow on or additional development to that.

Taking this to a more general case, it is generally agreed upon that any long lived culture is going to have to control it's population eventually or suffer collapse. So why would it not institute such a thing before a dyson is built instead of after? Especially when related tech (longevity) would seem to make the need even more urgent, and the solution (perfect and easy birth control) even more easy.

Putting this all together an advanced civ might have the means to create a dyson, but deliberately limit its population where such is not required even though the population is vastly larger than what we have now.

Assumption: Humans in the early 21st century have invented all possible solar blocking megastructures.

This seems rather unlikely. Advanced civilizations may have wants and needs that we haven't even imagined yet. Just working within what we've imagined in OA, advanced civs might want large industrial installations to create amat, exotic matter, black holes, magnetic monopoles, wormholes, or something else we haven't thought of yet. These installations might be quite large (but flimsy, working in zero G) but not support a large population.

Assumption: There is no middle ground between no dyson sphere and a full on effort to create a dyson sphere.

The assumption here seems to be that an advanced civ would start work on a dyson as soon as they are able and not stop until it's done. But why should this be the case? If there's no particular need for all that solar power then why build the sphere? In OA we have some groups building megastructures for fun (basically), but barring that, it's not clear why a civ would jump from being wherever it is when it invents the necessary tech to needing full solar output all at once. There is also the 'environmental impact' issue and the probability that, much like our own culture, the advanced civ will have many different groups with many different views. Some may be against taking planets apart (or all the planets, or some planets). Some may want to 'terraform' or use the planetary mass for other things. Some of the planets, asteroids, etc, in the system may have been developed before dyson tech becomes available and not want to vacate for the sake of having their homes used for raw material. Etc.

My 2c worth,

Todd
Reply
#19
So if this advanced xenosophonts really exist around this star and if they decided to investigate the galaxy and send self-replicating von Neumann probes to the nearest stars in the year 535 CE. How long would it take for one of the copies of these original probes to arrive here?
"Hydrogen is a light, odorless gas, which, given enough time, turns into people." -- Edward Robert Harrison
Reply
#20
Quote:Taking this to a more general case, it is generally agreed upon that any long lived culture is going to have to control it's population eventually or suffer collapse. So why would it not institute such a thing before a dyson is built instead of after? Especially when related tech (longevity) would seem to make the need even more urgent, and the solution (perfect and easy birth control) even more easy.

Putting this all together an advanced civ might have the means to create a dyson, but deliberately limit its population where such is not required even though the population is vastly larger than what we have now.
Exactly. I have already (before I read your comment) put a message to this effect on the comments section of that article.

I think the idea is that 'any advanced civilisation is compelled to make maximum utility of all its resources in as short a time as possible'. Many futurists think that the function of superintelligence is to increase the evolutionary fitness of the entity or entities concerned, making every action part of a struggle to maximise their control over the environment. Anders may be thinking along those lines; what is better than half-a-Dyson? A whole Dyson, of course.
But once you reach the limits of growth you are forced to scale back your expansion anyway; why not do it before you reach that stage, while you still have a choice?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)