Dust cloud, or alien construction?

[sphenisc]

Is there anything about the observations which makes it necessary that the occluding object(s) are part of the KIC8462852 system?

 

[Mike!]

False dichotomy. Maybe the aliens built a dust cloud! Why would they build a dust cloud? Beats me man, they're aliens.

Maybe they're like that kid from Peanuts and a dust cloud is just a byproduct of their existence.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Maybe they're like that kid from Peanuts and a dust cloud is just a byproduct of their existence.

Pig Pen? He's now in permanent isolation due to being declared a bio-hazard.

 

[Davidm]

Here's Phil Plait's article. He's cautiously suggesting that it might be aliens, and that it's worth a look, but it's almost certainly some natural phenomena.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Well this is what the scientists actully thinks:

"However, of the various considered, we find that the break-up
of a exocomet provides the most compelling explanation."

 

[Dinwar]

Is there anything about the observations which makes it necessary that the occluding object(s) are part of the KIC8462852 system?

It blocks 22% of the light from the star at times. To do that without being close to the star, and not eclipse the star entirely, would be tricky. Much easier to do that in orbit around the star, as you're both essentially the same distance from Earth (at this distance, an AU or two is negligible in terms of percieved size).

 

[Davidm]

Is there anything about the observations which makes it necessary that the occluding object(s) are part of the KIC8462852 system?

The fact that it's occluded repeatedly (which almost certainly indicates an orbiting object or objects) and nothing nearby (in our line of site) is coincidentally occluded.

 

[The Atheist]

Well this is what the scientists actully thinks:

"However, of the various considered, we find that the break-up
of a exocomet provides the most compelling explanation."

Well, if they can't use the correct indefinite article, I'm just not going to believe it.

 

[Mark6]

I loved this exchange on this topic, on another forum:

Poster A: I am going to suggest "look at enough stars and you will see unlikely, short lived events." Not aliens.

Poster B: Aliens could be an unlikely, short-lived event.

 

[Sideroxylon]

That's no moon.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Firstly it's not "the SETI folk", they're only now talking about devoting resources to examine KIC 8462852. And the paper doesn't mention (or imply) aliens.

Secondly various alternatives have been examined:
An orbiting cloud of dust and rocks of sufficient size is characteristic of a younger star than KIC 8462852. Plus there's the lack of excess infra-red.
Bad data, due to problems with Kepler, has been ruled out
The idea that something, perhaps a nearbystar, perturbed the orbits of a number of comets/asteroids is reasonably plausible (such a star does exists; a red dwarf at ~440k LS) but it would be an extraordinary event given the small window of time for such an effect to be noticed before the comets/asteroids either stabilised orbit or were destroyed. Plus the amount of stellar dimming (up to ~22%) is an enormous effect for such a cloud.
The changes in apparent stellar brightness are irregular, suggesting it's not a companion in a stable orbit. Plus they're far too large for even a super-Jovian planet.

That's why some astronomers are suggesting the possibility of an artificial structure is worth considering, rather than being dismissed summarily. Further study of EM emissions is proposed. Whether this will yield alien radio leaks or emissions from organic molecules characteristic of cometery debris, well we don't know.

As catsmate said, this isn't the only--or even the first--option they chose to examine. As I understand it, it's the LAST option on the list of things to look at. The significant thing here is that it's an option at all. It's on the list of reasonable possibilities. But it's not a very long list; there just aren't many ways to make a non-periodic dip in light from a star, not with this sort of spectrum anyway. Things like brown dwarfs, dust clouds, and the like can be (as I understand it) ruled out given the nature of the oclusions we've seen.

I'm referring to the article linked in the OP. I realize that there's an actual paper that may not mention anything similar, but the article refers separately to the SETI "folk".....

But researchers from UC Berkeley’s SETI Institute think it could be something else entirely: They think this could be a sign of alien technology. Boyajian is working with SETI and Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University, to develop a proposal to observe the star with NRAO’s Green Bank Telescope to search for radio waves. If they detect anything intriguing, they then have plans to use the Very Large Array (VLA) in New Mexico to listen for what could be the sounds of alien technology.

The first observations are estimated to take place in January, with a potential follow-up planned for next fall. Of course, if they stumble upon something incredible, the researchers could expect to follow-up with the VLA straight away. Kepler also plans to observe KIC 8462852 in May 2017, when the mass is expected to transit the star again.

While there may be various astronomers looking at it, if the article is to be trusted (which I have no idea of, frankly), then apparently SETI is still doing that SETI thing.

 

[Tolls]

"
Boyajian is working with SETI and Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University, to develop a proposal to observe the star with NRAO’s Green Bank Telescope to search for radio waves.
"

Boyajian is one of the papers authors, and (I believe) it was felt that it made sense to get some input from SETI with this. It wasn't SETI jumping on board.

 

[catsmate]

SETI should STFU. Astronomy, not science fiction.

Sigh.

That paper might not have mentioned aliens, but every other piece I've seen on it (lots) have, and almost all of the dailies have led with the word "Aliens" in their headline/clickbait.

So what?

Here's Phil Plait's article. He's cautiously suggesting that it might be aliens, and that it's worth a look, but it's almost certainly some natural phenomena.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html

Correct, an artificial phenomena is highly unlikely, though not impossible. An odd natural phenomena is more likely.

"
Boyajian is working with SETI and Jason Wright, an astronomer from Penn State University, to develop a proposal to observe the star with NRAO’s Green Bank Telescope to search for radio waves.

Boyajian is one of the papers authors, and (I believe) it was felt that it made sense to get some input from SETI with this. It wasn't SETI jumping on board.

Exactly. SETI have experience with searches for RF emissions and would be useful to the further study of the phenomena.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the Proxmire Effect is at work here.

 

[theprestige]

SETI should STFU. Astronomy, not science fiction.

Ironically, SETI does astronomy, not science fiction. Radio astronomy, which is probably the most effective way we have to search for ETI right now.

Why should they STFU? Is it science fiction to think that ETI might emit radio signals that we could detect?

Last time I checked, SETI was getting hardly any telescope time, and so little funding for analysis that they've had to crowdsource even modest amounts of computer time.

In spite of their limitations, SETI is pretty good at what they do--astronomy, not science fiction--and it makes sense to me that they would be asked to assist.

What exactly are they saying, that offends you so much that they should STFU about it?

 

[Mikemcc]

I thought one of the indicators for Dyson type structures was their infra red glow?

 

[Davidm]

...
Correct, an artificial phenomena is highly unlikely, though not impossible. An odd natural phenomena is more likely.
...

Of course, an advanced alien race would be an odd natural phenomena.

 

[Fudbucker]

Of course, an advanced alien race would be an odd natural phenomena.

Are we "an odd natural phenomena"?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are we "an odd natural phenomena"?

If we were advanced we would be.

 

[Fudbucker]

If we were advanced we would be.

What is your criteria for when life should be considered "advanced"?