The authors write that Earth could detect an Earthlike planet from 12000 light-years away via Earth's strong radio emissions -- specifically, the intermittent, celestially targeted radar beams (for example, those originally from Arecibo’s planetary radar).
But we'd need to be laser-focused on the planet, and we'd need to catch them when they're emitting.
Earth has only been emitting powerful radio waves for ~50 years, so our detection radius is ~50 LY.
Besides radio, most other means have a very low range.
willis936 8 hours ago [-]
We could detect the active biosphere of Earth from much further away with faster surveys. If we ever discovered an exoplanet like that you can be certain the phone would be ringing off the hook.
Sure, that says nothing of technological advancement, but biosphere signatures are roughly a prerequisite for technological advancement.
TeMPOraL 19 minutes ago [-]
To expand on it, I believe we could detect signs of possible biosphere by finding oxygen in the spectral lines of the planet's image. The idea being, free oxygen is highly reactive, and thus can exist in the atmosphere only for brief periods before oxidizing the first thing it bumps into. So, should we find a planet with lots of free oxygen in the air, we either got improbably lucky to catch it before it's gone, or... there is some process on the planet that's actively replenishing it.
On Earth, that process is the biosphere.
vintagedave 9 hours ago [-]
I've read of occasional strange radio signals we detect that are intermittent or not repeated. Is it possible that, to an external observer, our 'strong radio emissions' that are 'intermittent, celestially targeted' could appear similar?
With the natural question, could we have already observed something like what we're producing? I understand without a reproducible signal, no-one knows, but do any of those once-off signals work as a potential similar match?
ben_w 9 hours ago [-]
Several of them could have been, but without any repetitions, and given the lack of obvious signal in we actually recorded, and given the known natural processes that can cause transient radio bursts, the best bet is they're probably not aliens.
roughly 3 hours ago [-]
> the lack of obvious signal in we actually recorded
This is something I’m curious about - I’m led to understand that modern digital signaling is almost impossible to tell from noise, unless you know what you’re looking for (encryption and compression both conspire against obvious structure), is that not the case? Would it be obvious from a signal construction level that we were looking at, well, signal, and not noise?
spuz 10 hours ago [-]
I'm so glad that someone has finally tried to answer this question as it's something I've been wondering for years. It's interesting that atmospheric indicators are only detectable to around 5ly as that is I believe one of the primary methods we are using to look for technosignatures on other planets.
00N8 2 days ago [-]
It seems like they're calculating the farthest distances where it would be theoretically possible for aliens with Earth level tech to detect us, for various different ways of detection. I'm curious about a related question: At what distance would we likely have been able to detect 'ourselves' with current technology? Ie. if there was another Earth 100 or 1000 light years away, would we have seen it by now? (Assume they are x years ahead so the signals have had time to propagate).
I think it may be a relatively short distance, which could have implications for resolving the Fermi paradox, but I haven't seen any definitive estimates & I'm curious to learn more.
falcor84 2 days ago [-]
My understanding based on their use of "technology similar to ours" is that this is exactly what they're doing:
>If an extraterrestrial civilization existed with technology similar to ours, would they be able to detect Earth and evidence of humanity? If so, what signals would they detect, and from how far away?
00N8 10 hours ago [-]
I was thinking we probably can't watch the whole sky in maximum detail all at once, so in practice we'll miss most possible detections.
The caveat "with technology similar to ours" precludes that, I think.
We know how to do that, but we also know how to build an O'Neill cylinder, a phased array optical telescope covering the surface of the moon, or an orbital ring — but practical considerations mean we actually can't.
The authors write that Earth could detect an Earthlike planet from 12000 light-years away via Earth's strong radio emissions -- specifically, the intermittent, celestially targeted radar beams (for example, those originally from Arecibo’s planetary radar).
But we'd need to be laser-focused on the planet, and we'd need to catch them when they're emitting.
Earth has only been emitting powerful radio waves for ~50 years, so our detection radius is ~50 LY.
Besides radio, most other means have a very low range.
Sure, that says nothing of technological advancement, but biosphere signatures are roughly a prerequisite for technological advancement.
On Earth, that process is the biosphere.
With the natural question, could we have already observed something like what we're producing? I understand without a reproducible signal, no-one knows, but do any of those once-off signals work as a potential similar match?
This is something I’m curious about - I’m led to understand that modern digital signaling is almost impossible to tell from noise, unless you know what you’re looking for (encryption and compression both conspire against obvious structure), is that not the case? Would it be obvious from a signal construction level that we were looking at, well, signal, and not noise?
I think it may be a relatively short distance, which could have implications for resolving the Fermi paradox, but I haven't seen any definitive estimates & I'm curious to learn more.
>If an extraterrestrial civilization existed with technology similar to ours, would they be able to detect Earth and evidence of humanity? If so, what signals would they detect, and from how far away?
We know how to do that, but we also know how to build an O'Neill cylinder, a phased array optical telescope covering the surface of the moon, or an orbital ring — but practical considerations mean we actually can't.
https://x.com/i/status/1886833653801738734