Message boards :
Message board moderation
Joined: 13 Feb 99
The S@h hibernation - long overdue IMHO - will free up some of Eric's time and hopefully let us finish this project before the sun goes red giant.
Recent changes - described in my previous blog entries - have focused on finding and scoring multiplets. I think we're done with big changes in those areas. Now we move on to the last stage: deciding what scientific conclusions we want to make, and figuring out how to make them.
Finding ET would be a scientific conclusion. Failing that, we want to make (and quantitatively support) a statement about the "sensitivity" of our search - a statement of the form "if there were a radio beacon in frequency range X, in part Y of the sky, with power at least Z, our search would have detected it with probability P". It's hard to prove such a statement, but the "birdie" mechanism we've created in Nebula gives us a tool for doing so.
This is complicated by the fact that S@h is looking for lots of kind of signals, and we're more sensitive to some than others. Weâ€™re looking for signals in an abstract "space" with several dimensions:
Those are the main ones. Others:
Pixels with < 1 minute observation
Pixels with 1 - 10 minutes
Pixels with > 10 minutes (replace 1, 10 min with the terciles of actual obs times)
Signals with intrinsic BW < 1 Hz (optional)
Signals with intrinsic BW > 10 Hz (optional)
All pixels, all freq variations
Freq variation < 20 KHz
Freq variation 20 KHz - 100 KHz
Freq variation > 100 KHz
2-4, in pixels with < 1 min observation
2-4 in pixels with 1 - 10 min
2-4 in pixels > 10 min
Thatâ€™s a total of 19 areas, and it covers the important dimensions.
If we can show our sensitivity in each of these areas,
that will make a nice paper; I'll be happy with that.
Joined: 23 Jul 18
Thanks for this update!
Hopefully after the conclusion of this study there will be some sort of improved version of seti@home that uses updated apps and searching techniques using what you've learned from these results.
Joined: 20 Oct 18
So for a layman (Honestly, a lot of it goes right over my head. Math isn't my strong suit and kinda reads like that) How long does would this data take to accurately process until you are satisfied?
Don't worry, i'm not looking for it to be finished in 5 minutes and then seti@home is fired up again. Just more curious with the 20+ years of data you've got laying around processed, what it would take to process all that for conclusions?
Do you think there would be stages where the currently processed data may need more reworking from clients? Or it's basically "finished" and nothing else can be gleaned from it via more volunteer computing?
Historian for the Defunct Riviera Hotel and Casino, Former Classic Seti@home user for Team Art Bell. Greetings from the High Desert!
Joined: 20 Apr 00
I'm guessing that the receiving hardware had several updates over the 20 years of this project, to make incremental improvements to the signal detection sensitivity.
Perhaps (unfortunately) that's yet another parameter that needs to be taken into account? More recent observations of a pixel will have a greater sensitivity than older observations, so WU results need to be binned according to the available sensitivity at the epoch they were recorded.
Moreover, several pixels were recorded by different antennas (Arecibo, Green Bank, etc.), each of which has intrinsically different sensitivities, probably at different wavelengths too.
The whole analysis becomes hideously complex.
No wonder you need to switch off work units to allow full-time work on the data analysis.
Joined: 16 Jun 01
And how PulseFind algorithm validation done then?
SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.
Joined: 29 Feb 16
Well, what if there ARE another WOW signal(s) waiting to be discovered, but we just assumed all of them are noise, so we consistently get bad sensitivity because those ET signals rank higher than birdies but we think they are noise or non-repeatable?
Joined: 4 Sep 99
Please go ahead and get the statistical help, do the analyses of all the work that your SETI supporters have produced, and publish. I'm sure that we all suspect the the Search For Extra Terrestrial Intelligence will go on in various forms until mankind comes to a conclusion, or conclusions, regarding the issue. Clearly, the current SETI supporters, especially those commenting in these posts, represent a support potential that should be harnessed to move the investigation along in the near and medium future. The organization and focus that the SETI project brings to the issue should be sharpened and magnified to the extent possible, using your published and professional analyses as a guide. SETI stimulates the use and advancement of many disciplines... it is truly a seminal project.
©2023 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.