Dust cloud, or alien construction?

[Davidm]

While life on any of the moons in our solar system would be a major and scientifically truly awesome find, the reason I'd find this phenomena depressing is different.

IF it is truly alien construction and not, as is most likely something natural.
Then at some point a civilisation existed that was able to modify it's own solar system, something we can only dream of at the moment.
But we have no idea how long that has been visible. So not only is it likely that the ones building that are long gone, we do not see it on the stars closest to the one showing the phenomena.
That could mean that while they were technologically advanced enough to build a signal visible in the entire galaxy saying "look we existed!", but even they never left their own solar system. Meaning it is quite likely that we would also be confined to this solar system for the span of human existence.
The Sci-fi fan in me therefore fervently hopes that whatever it is, it is a natural effect.

Why? If you drive down the street and see a partially constructed house, you don't assume that the owners have passed away. You assume that the house is in the process of being constructed. Maybe we're seeing them at a point before they had expanded to neighboring stars, or maybe they went on to discover ways of meeting their needs that don't involve technologies that block star light.

 

[smartcooky]

from the OP's link..

"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."

Better put a call in to Dr Ellie Arroway then.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

from the OP's link..

"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."

Better put a call in to Dr Ellie Arroway then.

" . . . the sounds of alien technology."?

Let's hope these aliens drive cars without mufflers!

Surely we'll have to build a VBE^* to listen in?

.

.

.

.




^* Very Big Ear obviously.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

I've concocted a possibility for what the structure might be. An answer to global warming, provided by the Invisible Hand of capitalism: really massive billboards in orbit to block out some of the sun.

 

[theprestige]

" . . . the sounds of alien technology."?

Let's hope these aliens drive cars without mufflers!

Surely we'll have to build a VBE^* to listen in?

.

.

.

.




^* Very Big Ear obviously. : cool :

I think it's a nicely poetic turn of phrase. Some people will burn the romance out of anything.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think it's a nicely poetic turn of phrase. Some people will burn the romance out of anything.

Pah. I want pictures!!!!

 

[Cainkane1]

Probably not aliens but we can hope can't we?

 

[Mark6]

Here is a pretty good explanation why whatever is blocking the star's light cannot be in our solar system:

https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2015/10/15/kic-8462852wheres-the-flux/

(One of the comments, not the main blogpost)

Regarding a Solar System occulter:

The occulter would also be in orbit around the Sun, so it would not occult the star once every Kepler orbit. Anything in our Solar System occulting the star would likely occult other nearby stars not because it’s big but because it’s moving. There’s no reason it would come back exactly to this star and only this star, from Kepler’s perspective.

There are events occurring throughout the 4 year Kepler mission, not just a few events spaced by (roughly) two years.

The “exactly 2 years” bit is a red herring — Kepler does not orbit the sun every year or every two years, so there is no coincidence to explain.

Anything with a sharp edge in the solar system would create diffraction when occulting the star, which we do not see

The timescales are all wrong: it takes days for the star to get dimmer, which suggests a very low mutual velocity for the occulter and the star, implying it is in orbit around the star.

The “soft” ingress and egresses of the star means you have to invoke a “fuzzy” absorber without sharp edges. It would presumably be visible as a dark part of the sky in deep imagery of this part of the sky.

 

[Nihilianth]

This is really cool. I wish we could really ramp up the space program to do more of this sort of science. Lately everything we look at surprises us - Pluto, Mars, the various comets and asteroids that have been visited, everything.

I just really geek out about the space program sometimes.

It would be way cool if NASA could get a FRACTION of the funding that the military gets. Alas, we are stuck on a dirtball full of religious conservative nutbags....

 

[smartcooky]

there just aren't many ways to make a non-periodic dip in light from a star

Orbital mechanics is not my strong point, but is it feasible to have three planets in the same orbit... say at "trojan" points (L4 & L5), and some with large moons?


I realise it might not be very stable

 

[Davidm]

A possible explanation?
http://www.techinsider.io/alien-megastructure-explained-oblate-star-2015-10

When a star is oblate, it has a larger radius at its equator than it does at its poles. As a result, the poles have a higher surface gravity, and thus higher temperature and brightness. Thus, the poles are "gravity brightened", and the equator "gravity darkened."
...
This creates patches of darker and lighter regions within these kinds of stars, so the light curves that make it back to Earth won't look completely uniform. What's more, planets often orbit "obliquely" from Earth's perspective and do not pass directly in front of a star.

So those especially weird light curves from KIC 8462852 could easily be caused by planets passing in front of darker and lighter regions — not alien artifacts floating around it.

I have no idea if this analysis is correct or not.

 

[Dinwar]

I'm thinking not--a star that's oblate with a short axis aligned with the plane of the motion of its planets would have had to be flipped somehow. And that "somehow" would have to be pretty exotic--flipping the star without disrupting the planets. Plus, the reduction in light is pretty extreme, at 20%.

 

[sphenisc]

Orbital mechanics is not my strong point, but is it feasible to have three planets in the same orbit... say at "trojan" points (L4 & L5), and some with large moons?


I realise it might not be very stable

That would result in three planets with the same period...not non-periodicity.

 

[Davidm]

I'm thinking not--a star that's oblate with a short axis aligned with the plane of the motion of its planets would have had to be flipped somehow. And that "somehow" would have to be pretty exotic--flipping the star without disrupting the planets. Plus, the reduction in light is pretty extreme, at 20%.

Maybe it was flipped by aliens.

 

[BenBurch]

It's the Fleet of Worlds!

 

[Mike!]

It's the Fleet of Worlds!

Are they fleeing the Cylon tyranny?

 

[nota]

Are they fleeing the Cylon tyranny?

Pac protectors

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

 

[catsmate]

Maybe It’s Time To Stop Snickering About Aliens.

 

[Mark6]

A possible explanation?
http://www.techinsider.io/alien-megastructure-explained-oblate-star-2015-10
I have no idea if this analysis is correct or not.

That particular explanation has been on the Internet for last several days. However, Tabby Boyajian's team had already considered it before publishing their findings, and rejected it as implausible. At least, less plausible than "comet swarm" explanation -- and that one is a stretch.

 

[Rincewind]

As I confessed in the other thread about this, it's Discworld!

Obviously...