Researchers discovered alien megastructure?

[toast]

The largest of these appears to be around 650,000 miles in diameter.

Source pls.

[DONTEATUS]

How many members think its just natural?

How many Think its an Alien Structure ?

How many Fell asleep reading all this ?

[bison]

Three links. The first is to Dr. Jason Wright's paper. It mentions the 22 percent dimming of the star and the conclusion that this involves an object half the size of the star. See section 4 of his paper for this. He does not mention the size of the star, but this is readily available from common reference sources, like Wikipedia, as is the size of our Sun, Links 2 and 3, respectively.

KIC 8462852 is reportedly 1.58 times the size of our Sun, which is approximately 864,000 miles in diameter. Multiplying one by the other gives the figure ~1,365,000 miles. Half of that is ~ 682,500 miles. (numbers rounded) I find that the 650,000 mile figure I gave was a bit conservative.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1510.04606v1.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

[kartikg]

Hi Bision one question if the object you mentioned doesn't have enough mass bust just the size is it still supposed to collapse and form a star?

[Harte]

It's mass, not length, that causes a gravitational field.

Length doesn't tell you anything about even the volume, much less the mass or density.

Harte

[bison]

Yes, the scenario I described involves a roughly spherical object, the size (and mass) of a small star. Many have proposed explanations for the dimming star involving companions of this shape. If the object is instead a debris field, the mass will be much less, and it would not amount to a star, even if it should be condensed by gravity.

The debris field explanation has problems of its own. If a collision of planets is its source, the amount of fine debris should be great enough for us to detect, via the scattering of infra-red light. Such an infra-red excess was looked for, but not found.

An explanation involving the drawing in of comets, and their subsequent destruction, involves less fine debris.

In this case, we are faced with a new question: How could enough comet fragments be drawn into a small enough space to occlude up to 22 percent of the light of this star? As we know, comets are essentially very thin, wispy things, with negligible solid, opaque matter. There has been a good deal of scientific dissatisfaction with this explanation. Even Dr. Jason Wright has called it 'contrived'.

[Frank Merton]

It does appear, though, that there is a small star nearby that is about right to cause such a comet swarm. If so I would not like to be a resident of a planet in the system right now.

[bison]

Yes, comet fragments could be the explanation. It seems remarkable, though, that the destruction of enough cometary material to dim the star by up to 22 percent gave rise to no detectable excess of dust. The star KIC 846 2852 reportedly has just the right amount of infra-red light for a star of its sort. No excess of IR due to the effects of dust.

[Frank Merton]

What we are talking about here, whatever it is, is a rare phenomenon. This is the only case of Kepler observing such a thing. Therefore we cannot dismiss possible explanations just by saying they are unlikely, since whatever it is, is unlikely.

[+Hammerclaw]

KIC 8462852 is a genuine unsolved mystery. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[ChrLzs]

Yes, comet fragments could be the explanation. It seems remarkable, though, that the destruction of enough cometary material to dim the star by up to 22 percent gave rise to no detectable excess of dust. The star KIC 846 2852 reportedly has just the right amount of infra-red light for a star of its sort. No excess of IR due to the effects of dust.

My concern with this is as stated above - it's all pretty much a once off and first time we have detected anything like it. How do we know just how much 'dust' *should* happen? How do we know that it *should* show up clearly in the type of detection systems being used? In other words, I want to see what they are basing their claims of it 'seeming remarkable', on. Rare? yes, perhaps - but remarkable? or requiring something other than a better understanding of the circumstances and processes at work.. ?

[Inversion5]

... Rare? yes, perhaps - but remarkable? or requiring something other than a better understanding of the circumstances and processes at work.. ?

Someone is suggesting an 'oblate star' : http://www.techinsid...te-star-2015-10

Yet, the first thing researchers brought up to the professional astronomers, as soon as they found the rarity, was their idea of it being the star causing it. Supposedly, the way I remember the story read (red ) was that the star itself was the first thing ruled out. If I were these professional astronomers who ruled out the star as the cause, and took 4 years to study it, with all their resources at their disposal with everyone looking into a star cause, must have considered it. It is not hard for professionals, and the support team, to look at every single research paper published to get more ideas to establish their case. If they did not do that, then THAT would be remarkable especially when they know the entire professional world would be watching.

Edited October 26, 2015 by dirtierdragoon4

[bison]

'I looked over the 'Oblate Star' paper yesterday. The most serious problem with it appears to be this: It requires that, in one case, a planet orbiting 'Tabby's Star' blot out 20 percent of its light. It's been found that the largest planets obscure only about one percent of the their star's brightness.

We have sound physical and observational reasons for believing that planets much larger than this will not be found. The mass of such a body would cause it to be denser, but not larger, due to the pull of gravity.

How much dust should be released when comets are destroyed? We have a good idea of this, from our studies of comet composition. Our basic understanding of how star systems form seems to indicate that dust should figure in the composition of comets, wherever they're found.

We also understand how to detect dust, due to its absorption and scattering of light, favoring the infra-red. The observation of dust in distant star system has been possible for a number of years.

Edited October 26, 2015 by bison

[Inversion5]

'I looked over the 'Oblate Star' paper yesterday. The most serious problem with it appears to be this: It requires that, in one case, a planet orbiting 'Tabby's Star' blot out 20 percent of its light. It's been found that the largest planets obscure only about one percent of the their star's brightness...

In reading peoples' comments on the oblate star suggestion, I'm convinced an oblate star is not the cause due to other occurrences missing in KIC's star system. Not because we don't have the data, but because we do.

Edited October 27, 2015 by dirtierdragoon4

[DONTEATUS]

IS this the WTF1190F object were still dreaming is an Alien Construct > Someone tell me it aint so !

[Mr.United_Nations]

Its Atlantis im telling you

[bison]

The SETI Institute listened again yesterday for intelligent radio signals from the star KIC 8462852. They had presumably finished installing the new, cryogenically-cooled receivers, and so enjoyed double or better sensitivity over the equipment used last week.

Their stated plan is to listen to 'Tabby's Star' through the end of the month. Any monitoring after that will suggest that their results may have been, to some extent, encouraging.

They have been listening in both narrow band widths, for signals from single transmitters, and at wider bandwidths for the combined effect of a number of signals occurring at the same time.

Edited October 28, 2015 by bison

[Ryinrea]

Has anymore news come out over this object or what the found it out to be. I know the biggest planet in our solar system only covers about 1% not the 20% they say this one does of a star.

[Ryinrea]

IS this the WTF1190F object were still dreaming is an Alien Construct > Someone tell me it aint so !

Nope it's a new object or star.

[toast]

I know the biggest planet in our solar system only covers about 1% not the 20% they say this one does of a star.

That fact is still the miracle of KIC 8462852.

[Ryinrea]

That fact is still the miracle of KIC 8462852.

Agreed that is a large planet if it is a natural reason or hell even an asteroid that is very large.

[bison]

A planet would have to be close to 700,000 miles in diameter to block 22 percent of the the light from this star. The problem is that there are very good reasons for believing that planets simply don't come anywhere near that large.

Cometary debris, the scientists' favorite explanation at this point, would suggest a totally opaque cloud of this same size. A more likely scenario involves a debris cloud twice that size, that lets through ~ 78 percent of the light shining on it.

That's still quite a reach, especially considering the fact that no excess dust is observed in this star system. Dust is one of the main ingredients of comets, and should probably be readily apparent in a system where comets are undergoing destruction.

Edited October 30, 2015 by bison

[taniwha]

My guess its no more than a dying star remnant.

http://www.spitzer.caltech.edu/info/219-Dying-Stars

[bison]

No indications were found in the KIC 846 2852 system of any stars that were off the main sequence, that is-- any that could properly be said to be dying. If such a star were present, it should have been possible to see it.

Even a small, dim red dwarf star, possibly a companion of the brighter F3 type star was seen, about 890 astronomical units away. Since the F3 star may well be too young to have have evolved intelligent life, it seems more likely that any civilization that might be found there originated elsewhere. The red dwarf star is a possibility here.

Edited October 31, 2015 by bison

[Frank Merton]

A brown dwarf enters my head, but that of course would have an infrared signature, which is probably why no one has mentioned it.

Whatever it is, it is a rare phenomenon, so it may involve some new type of object.