Jump to content

The WOW Message Makes Sense!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

The WOW message reads: "6EQUJ5".

I think you have misinterpreted the representation of the signal's intensity.  

 

Quote

The string 6EQUJ5, commonly misinterpreted as a message encoded in the radio signal, represents in fact the signal's intensity variation over time, expressed in the particular measuring system adopted for the experiment. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wow!_signal

 

Quote

According to science writer Michael Brooks in his book 13 Things That Don't Make Sense, "The letters and numbers are, essentially, a measure of the intensity of the electromagnetic signal as it hit the receiver. Low power was recorded with numbers 0 to 9; as power got higher, the computer used letters: 10 was A, 11 was B and so on." 

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2010/05/28/126510251/aliens-found-in-ohio-the-wow-signal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

The string 6EQUJ5, commonly misinterpreted as a message encoded in the radio signal, represents in fact the signal's intensity variation over time, expressed in the particular measuring system adopted for the experiment. 

So the message could be encoded in the intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

So the message could be encoded in the intensity.

How?

The intensity, as far as I know, is due to the construction of the measurement equipment, not properties of the source of the signal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

If they knew about the construction details through telepathic means.

Then they're witches, and they'd weigh the same as a duck; so we can drown them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

So the message could be encoded in the intensity.

There was no evidence of any amplitude modulation.  The change in intensity resulted from the Earth's rotation.  Try to keep up.  

It's like having a fixed metal detector and a person with keys in their pocket strolls slowly by.   For 72 seconds, they're in the detector's range and the "mmrreeep!" sound peaks as they are directly in front of it right in the middle of those 72 seconds.  The Q and the U which represent the highest intensities are in the middle of the string.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Willem F Esterhuyse said:

If they knew about the construction details through telepathic means.

If the "wow-signal" is the best they came up with having such formidable powers then I'm very unimpressed. I'll wait for something more intelligent to be communicated before investing more time in their signals.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently this advanced civilisation will spare no effort in telling the universe about the big news: Six is next to five.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

There was no evidence of any amplitude modulation.  The change in intensity resulted from the Earth's rotation.  Try to keep up.  

It's like having a fixed metal detector and a person with keys in their pocket strolls slowly by.   For 72 seconds, they're in the detector's range and the "mmrreeep!" sound peaks as they are directly in front of it right in the middle of those 72 seconds.  The Q and the U which represent the highest intensities are in the middle of the string.  

Exactly what I noticed: low intensity-peak-low intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jill Tarter and pals went looking for another incidence of the WOW signal a couple years ago.  Nada.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aba58f

If you find the jargon fairly bruising, skip down to section five, their conclusions.  If you're curious what the strength is of signals encountered in radio astronomy, that Jy unit they mention is a Jansky, which is 10-26 Watts Metre-2 Hertz-1.  It's common use is for point sources, so it's the metric of choice in SETI.  (it's obtained by integrating over the source solid angle, so things are simpler with a point)

 

 

Edited by TheVat
Mreepp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.