Talk:Tabby's Star/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some new research

No exoplanets in the range of 0.7 to 7 MJ and 8 to 403 AU (source).

It is possible to reproduce the basic features in the light-curve of KIC 8462852 with four objects enshrouded in dust clouds (source).

Historic plates from a German and a Russian observatory show no century-long dimming. But a possible dimming event in 1978 (source).

Should I add them to the article? --Thereisnous (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure! kencf0618 (talk) 02:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Restoring names of specific researchers and institutions

I have restored the names of specific researchers and institutions for two reasons: 1) Without these, it is much more difficult for the public to follow what's going on, and therefore less public interest, and therefore less funding for this type of research; and 2) none of these researches seem to be "grandstanding" inasmuch as their contributions seem to be very well grounded both in terms of science and science history.Synchronist (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• Get this filthy academic boosterism off of Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning)

Primary sources referring to themselves

As you may or may not know, primary sources cannot refer to themselves. For example, the paragraph "According to professor Steinn Sigurðsson, the idea that the dimming is caused by an artificial megastructure is a falsifiable hypothesis and is thus scientifically valid. However, it remains less probable than some other explanations, as it is disfavored by Occam's razor given the current lack of evidence of advanced extraterrestrial civilizations." is cited to Steinn Sigurðsson. For an encyclopedia article to highlight the name of a researcher, a secondary source must be provided for that purpose. It is perfectly fine for the idea Sigurðsson expresses to remain in the article since it is a scholarly analysis (a secondary source) on the topic. Get it? Abductive (reasoning) 03:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Geogene (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

So, what seems to be missing is an explanation of why it can't be a series of multiple exoplanets.

Anyone?

Why can't there be an outlier?

Think about atoms... most atoms only have a handful of electrons orbiting their core, but every once in a while, an element will have TONS of electrons floating around its core (similar to how planets rotate around the sun). Why couldn't something similar be happening? It would just be more rare to see it, that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.194.20.92 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Article Talk pages are for discussing article-work, not a forum for questions and discussion of the topic itself. However you do raise the point that the article is "missing" this explanation. That's a reasonable point, but I don't think an encyclopedia article could reasonably go into that sort of detail, explaining why scientists reject each of the ideas that they reject. There are too many of "wrong ideas", the explanations of why they are wrong are not always well documented for us to use, and that sort of "negative/rejected" information would be a bulky distraction from providing "positive" knowledge and credible explanations.

But to answer your question: planets in different orbits wouldn't coordinate for repeated large light-dips, and a swarm of planets in essentially one shared orbit would rapidly collide or scatter chaotically. However I couldn't just write that into the article - that was an original research answer. That means I just "made it up" based on my personal knowledge and my personal understanding. We don't allow that kind of thing into articles. All information here needs to be documented to Reliable Sources. Otherwise we would have random people coming here and inserting all sorts of random stuff they think they know, and all too often that turns out to be wrong or utter nonsense. If someone wants to put something in an article, they need to back it up with good sources. Alsee (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Possible starlight obstruction - near star - or far away?

FWIW - Seems there may be an assumption that any possible obstruction blocking the starlight from Tabby's star is *near* the star - is there any cited studies that support this? - perhaps the possible obstruction is *far away* from the star? - possibly even close (or, at least, closer?) to Earth? - Comments Welcome - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There have been such theories proposed, including the Interstellar Medium and Solar System objects. Jason Wright gives a breakdown of many of the varied ideas in his blog series; http://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/tabbys-star-posts/. Like all the other ideas they do have their drawbacks. A pre-print has been put up on Arxiv yesterday arguing a Solar System explanation, though it doesn't look like this has been submitted to a journal yet so not a suitable source. ChiZeroOne (talk) 09:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@ChiZeroOne: Thank you *very much* for your excellent comments - and noted references - they're all *greatly* appreciated - perhaps some of this latest material, once reviewed/published, may be added to the main article - Thanks again for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Straight-off-the-email-list speculation

Let's not start digging into email discussions as sources. Speculation about aliens should be peer-reviewed before including in the article. Geogene (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The deleted hypothesis was not based on a mere "email". It was 1) a communication sent in the middle of a tranisent event 2) by the designer of the first protocol in the asynchronous arena to successfully deal with satellite based communications ( see http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/maritime_satellite_communications.pdf ) 3) to the executive editor of an important academic journal and a related series of other outlets 4) who also happens to be an astrophysicist and PI for the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite 5) with the hope that said communication could be published quickly during the tranisent event and 6) which communication was judged by said astrophysicist to be of sufficient merit that it did enjoy publication in the most expeditious and appropriate manner available to him. And no, it's not an article in a peer-reviewed journal; but anyone familiar with the history of science and technology knows that some of the most important contributions have been in the form of brief communications. So I will therefore be restoring the "armillary sphere" hypothesis once again.Synchronist (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't care who it's from. It's an email. It's not peer-reviewed. And it is making an extraordinary claim. Geogene (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur. Peer-reviewed citations are the gold standard. kencf0618 (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Third. This has no business being in the article at this point. VQuakr (talk) 06:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

My email says that it is caused by one of the turtles occluding the star. Or Borg. Roxy the dog. bark 07:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fifth. At this point there is an informal but clear consensus here to not include this content at this time. Synchronist, please reign in your enthusiasm. Editing against consensus is disruptive and may lead to being blocked from editing. If you want to re-include this content, or similar content, I strongly advise you to seek support here on Talk rather than adding it to the article directly. Editing disagreements belong on the talk page, not on the article page.

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. We summarize mainstream views and significant minority viewpoints with significant support when they have WP:DUEWEIGHT for inclusion, in rough proportion to that weight and support. We sometimes allow WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs but they are the weakest and most troublesome sources, they are subject stricter limitations, and may only be used with extra care. WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims require multiple high-quality sources. WP:FRINGE theories may be legitimate scientific speculation and may involve legitimate scientific investigation. However as WP:FRIND says: "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles". I could keep going, citing more policies and guidelines. The simple point is that this wildly speculative idea posted by one person on a mailing list does not remotely belong in this article. It's not even close. This does not belong here. Alsee (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear dedicated Wikipedia editors,

I'm going to end up suggesting a way forward here -- but please allow me to begin by trying to lighten some of the burden under which I start out:

First, let me assure you that when I re-posted for the third time -- the discussion having been shifted to my own talk page by Geogene, and who ended up by leaving me with 1) implicit permission to re-post, and 2) with the explicit belief that he had been the only editor standing in opposition -- I was not aware of the new consensus against the post building up here. (I should have re-checked.)

Second, and inasmuch as an inherent part of the rap against the current post is that it involves speculation, let me note that it is Wikipedia that, as an encyclopedia, has made the quite extraordinary decision to cover emerging news stories -- and about which it is impossible to write in a significant way without some informed speculation. I.e., if Wikipedia is going to engage in such coverage, it must be [very] flexible in respect to the traditional rules governing encyclopedias. And nowhere is this more true than in an article about KIC 8462852, and the entire importance of which revolves around the mystery of its dimming. Or in short, informed speculation is not at all out of place in this article -- and it has indeed become perhaps the main forum for those seeking to understand what is going on during these events.

Third -- and speaking of informed speculation -- let me push back against the idea that the current post does not represent such. To begin with, the guy who chose to publish my communication is an astrophysicst, for God's sake, and was NASA's PI for the Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite! And I myself, as the pioneering author of the important BLAST (blocked asynchronous transmission) data communications protocol -- and whose major feature was the ability to overcome the propagation delay due to satellite links ( see http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/maritime_satellite_communications.pdf ) -- must be considered an expert (if such can be considered to exist in this field) when it comes to the strategies which an alien civilization would employ when faced with the propagation delay inherent in inter-stellar communications.

And of course that brings us to the fourth burden under which Dr. Malina and myself labor -- that we have dared to talk about the previously disreputable subject of "aliens". Get a life, Wikipedia!!! There has been a statling revolution in astronomy over the last thirty years -- and the "search for life" has become the quite explicit rallying cry for astronomy in its search for funding. And I am quite certain that many, if not most, of the astronomers involved with KIC 8462852 would love nothing more than for the evidence from it continuing to point in the direction of some type of "alien megastructure". Dr Malina and myself did not invent the idea -- it's already out there, and we're just trying to give it some rational substance.

And this brings me, finally, to my proposed solution, and one which will address my own regret about the post: that I have perhaps "stolen the thunder" from one, and perhaps several, of the young astronomers mentioned above who have long since had precisely the same idea about alien megastructures in general and KIC 8462852 in particular. So it's a new day, and I am therefore planning on a much modified post which will emphasize 1) its speculative nature -- but this in concert with the entire KIC 8462852 investigation; 2) the idea that the same concept has no doubt occurred to many of the researchers involved; and 3) thus the need for ongoing edits to the post which will result in some type of consensus.

But I will also be checking back here for feedback. Synchronist (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, my much revised post has been deleted again, and without anyone having responded to my sincere attempt above to meet your various objections. Can anyone suggest a way forward?Synchronist (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Synchronist you have now added the content five times and been reverted five times by three people. Geogene's post to you was not remotely any sort of permission to repost it. You were warned not to edit war after the fourth time you added it. You knew dang well knew there was unanimous consensus in this discussion against the edit. It was well-explained to you why the edit was unacceptable. I am now filing a block-request to prevent you from further disruptive edits. Assuming that the block is approved, and eventually expires, I again most strongly advise you to use the discussion page to seek support before adding any content to the article. Alsee (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Synchronist: the "way forward" is for you to stop inserting this material into the article; there is clear consensus against its inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Synchronist, at Wikipedia we attempt to summarize what Reliable Sources say about a subject. We strive to do so in a neutral manner. That means we we present the mainstream view on a subject, and where there are significant alternative views we may include them in proportion to their weight in sources. When a viewpoint has little coverage in Reliable Sources, or only a single source, then DUEWEIGHT is not to include it at all. The only "way forward" for the content you want to add is if and when MULTIPLE Reliable Sources start giving it significant attention and coverage.

An important thing about Wikipedia is that we do NOT allow it to be used to promote or advocate. We don't introduce new ideas, and we don't promote or advocate old ideas that "aren't getting the attention they deserve". We are neutral. We summarie what's out there, in proportion to how much coverage Reliable Sources already give it.

Wikipedia doesn't lead. Wikipedia follows. We're not a primary source. We're not a secondary source. We're a tertiary source that summarized what secondary sources say.

If you want to advance your armillary sphere idea, you have to do it off-Wikipedia. We'll pick it up later, if and when it's accepted by others. Alsee (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, thanks for your feedback. As you may have already seen from my post on my user talk page, I am trying to move the conversation there, or to your talk page -- whatever you prefer.Synchronist (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussions related to the block & general wiki-collaboration moving to your user_talk. Article-related discussions should continue on article_talk after the block expires, for the common benefit of current and future editors working on any given article. Alsee (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is a huge part of my life ( see, for example, footnote 1 of this publication: http://artent.net/2015/03/27/art-and-artificial-intelligence-by-g-w-smith/ ), I am deeply grateful to Alsee for taking the time to reach out to me in a substantial manner on my talk page, and the truth is that I can't disagree with a thing he's said -- and I'll certainly pay more attention in the future if I ever find myself in the same situation.

Naturally, however, there are some additional things I would like to say in my own defense; but rather than descend into such a dispiriting "he said/she said" mode of discourse, I'm wondering if we might not agree to place the bulk of the blame where it truly belongs.

I refer, of course, to the desperate hurry we all felt ourselves to be in as a result of a transient astronomical event of perhaps unprecedented significance.

For my own part -- and having posted a lengthy explanation of my position before leaving for work in the morning -- I should certainly have waited longer than my 11:00 AM lunch break for you guys to respond before reposting to the main article. And likewise -- perhaps when you guys came back from lunch yourselves and noticed that the rascally Synchronist was once again trying to crash the Wikipedia/Tabby's Star party (and during which readership was indeed spiking) -- perhaps more time could have been spent in "listening to the music behind the words" of my talk page post.

And having acknowledged the desperate hurry we all felt ourselves to be in, could we not go one step further in understanding that -- because of its unparalleled information-sharing tools -- there is an overwhelming tendency during breaking news events for Wikipedia to become a clearing house instead of an encyclopedia, and which in turn places enormous pressure on its editors? And is not this circumstance particularly troublesome during a transient astronomical event, and in respect to which uncredentialed members of the public, as opposed to professional astronomers, have on several occasions made significant contributions to scientific history?

How difficult would it be, therefore, to expand the text of the "Current Event" warning box to read something like the following: "This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. Updates to this article may not reflect the most current information, and/or may need to be subsequently altered or removed."? This would provide a little more latitude for the editors.

But again, thanks to Alsee for his concern.Synchronist (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanx Synchronist. Editing at breaking-news articles can get rather chaotic. I'm not opposed to a tweak to the Current_Event template, but I'm not sure there's much point.

I've been eagerly searching for any results from spectrographic and other observations, but I'm not finding anything yet. Alsee (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, see below for reference to spectographic data.Synchronist (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Interregnum Cruise Science & the Scientific Paper Publication Cycle

We shall need a consensus for both the (astronomically) long-term cycles of this article and the shorter cycles of academic publication. Dr. Boyajian has remarked in a question-and-answer session on Twitter that an initial short paper regarding the initial May 2017 dimming "within the month," while it will take longer for more detailed work. (https://twitter.com/tsboyajian/status/868142552314241025) There shall undoubtedly be further intense pulses of data collection followed by various cycles of scientific papers being published, so any ideas how to savvy this? kencf0618 (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Totally delighted to see this post, because it perhaps implies an interest in tackling the issues associated with the even shorter term duration of the transient astronomical event itself -- and during which, as noted above under "Straight-off-the-email-list speculation", uncredentialed members of the public have on several occasions made important contributions to scientific history. And yes, these have typically involved actual observations, as of a nova or comet -- but suppose an informed speculation turned out to be the key to understanding an unfolding astronomical event?Synchronist (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Since there is a lot of speculation, we cannot put it all here. It is better to wait for its impact to be determined by real publication, or secondary review. Wikipedia is not the place for breaking idea or news dissemination. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia does in fact cover breaking events; and if it is argued that "Yes, but only to the extent of reporting published/verifiable facts", there is the consideration that when those facts begin to point toward toward a plausible explanation, then not to articulate that explanation in itself does violence to the entire process. If, for example, it is reported one night that smoke has been seen above the far end of Yeosmite Canyon, and that the clouds above it seem to be illuminated, any such report that does not suggest the likelihood of a forest fire will tend to be ignored as a curious reportorial exercise. And is this the corner in which Wikipedia wants to box itself?

Now, we are perhaps not yet to this point with the possibility of an alien megastructure; but if the initial data from the Liverpool Telescope holds up, and which shows no spectral signature associated with the dimming -- and this data seems to have been reported with some confidence -- then as a prime alternative, astronomers will have to posit a quite large body which has attracted to itself no atmosphere whatsoever.Synchronist (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

We'll have plenty of scientific papers to process during the 759.75-day cycle. If we could, we'd throw the kitchen sink at Tabby's Star, but as it is new orbiting telescopes shall come on-line. We shall have lots more data to process, and we are currently waiting on troves of data now. The scientific papers shall be driving this article, not your special pleading. kencf0618 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, this sounds like becoming dangerously ill-informed OR. Some random person on the internet speculating over data they are not privy to is NOT a sufficient source for Wikipedia. You do realise Tabetha has stated on a number of occasions that the photometric data so far indicates the presence of dust? See https://twitter.com/tsboyajian/status/866390381063229441 (For explanation this means the dimming was deeper in Blue B than Infrared i', implying dust) as well as https://twitter.com/tsboyajian/status/868145471033946116 . As for the Liverpool results that is only a medium resolution (R=2,500) spectrograph looking at the star when only 2% of the star's light is blocked, I would be surprised if it could see any subtle changes in the first place. There are many spectrographs which took FAR more high-resolution data such as Keck's Hires (R~80,000). It is those observations that are important. ChiZeroOne (talk) 17:26, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I am as eager as anyone for the Keck data, and totally agree that it will eclipse the Liverpool data. But is it accurate to use the term "only" in respect to a 2% drop in observed output from a star of this size? And what does "OR" stand for?Synchronist (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@Synchronist: "OR" is a reference to our policy of no Original Research, which precludes analysis or synthesis that does not appear in an originating reliable source. VQuakr (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, VQuakr -- and I now accept that that my hypothesis does not yet meet Wikipedia's standards for publication therein under its current guidelines for covering transient events. But I also object to its characterization as "dangerously ill-informed" and from "some random person on the Internet". As those who have been in dialogue with me for some days know, I am the author of the first data communications protocol in the asynchronous arena capable of dealing efficiently with satellite hops; i.e., the speed of light was a daily commercial reality for me. And the person who chose to make my hypothesis public is himself an astrophysicist and executive editor of academia's leading art/science journal, and which is published by MIT, no less. Does that sound like "some random person on the internet"? My only purpose now -- and following the lead of kencf0618, who started this thread -- is to examine how Wikipedia deals with transient events like the current dimming.Synchronist (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it, Dr. Boyajian has remarked on Twitter that while no hypothesis has been ruled out, the most likely suspect is dust. Which is not a sexy hypothesis which tends to be subjected to Betteridge's law of headlines, but it's where the science is. kencf0618 (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Hypotheses" section?

My WP:BOLD edit was reverted. The entire section is wild speculation and I see no way to repair it. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Wild speculation is acceptable as long as it is due coverage of someone else's reliably sourced speculation. VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I say we keep this section, as a lot of coverage on this topic is speculation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This event is unprecedented -- speculation is all we have to go on! -- and so unless one felt himself (not likely to be herself!) called upon to declare a curfew upon a cave full of agitated hominids -- let us cling to, and honor, our willingness to speak out in the darkness.Synchronist (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

It is speculation done by experts in reliable sources. We'll probably get some updates in ~2 months, when we know if the small dip last month was all or if there are more dips. And we have worse Hypotheses sections. --mfb (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

What about the idea of "citizen science"? Didn't ordinary citizens -- and at the invitation of the scientists themselves -- call attention in the first place to the unusual dips in KIC 8462852's brightness? And if we then have some well-founded ideas about what might be causing those dips -- and in respect to which the scientists themselves seem totally baffled -- why should they be so scorned by Wikipedia? Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", and so I really struggle to understand the motivation -- in this particular and perhaps historically unprecedented situation -- of those who are so eager to shut out all other voices except for the "scientists" -- and which scientists are perhaps desperate to be holding hands with the public as we step into the unknown . . . Synchronist (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

When others write about it then we can include it. But when citizen scientists make up their own speculations on blogs, twitter and so on, we don't normally count it as a reliable source. But if it then gets reported in solid print media then it becomes suitable to report here, perhaps then with a reference back to the original proposer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed all the images and sub-headings from this section as a new proposal. Power~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I have restored them. Although the images may not be specifically for this star, they give a clue to help readers imagine what's there. Secondly the subheadings add prominence in the index, and make it easy for readers to skip forward when they have had enough of one speculation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In most cases speculative information should be avoided as poor quality / unencyclopedic information. But in this case it is a core element of Reliable Source coverage. We can cautiously include aspects that have gotten the most significant and credible coverage in secondary sources. The current version seems to do a good job of restraint, and including critical perspectives on various theories. Alsee (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Bruce Gary dimming curve

The latest dimming curve as reported by Bruce Gary is quite interesting. Is it OK to speculate on this talk page as to what arrangement of occluding bodies -- or shape -- could cause such a dimming curve?Synchronist (talk) 05:45, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages are not a forum, they are here purely to discuss changes to an article. See WP:TALK. ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

There are some sources out there - I've seen some discussion of periodicity, though I'll have to look back and try to get straight which pattern to compare to what. But looking at the two patterns, if there is a super deep dip in the spectrum on July 12, I think I'll be fairly convinced. ;) Wnt (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

As long as we're tweaking the Bruce Gary data caption, not sure why a 2% dimming, in terms of transit astronomy, should be described as "modest". Synchronist (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

It is modest both compared to the 20% dips earlier and compared to the uncertainty of the current measurements. --mfb (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Innate Processes"

Re the Kohler "innate processes" hypothesis -- and let's give this researcher an "A" for verbal dexterity! -- would there not be at least some spectral signature?!? And speaking of which, when does the delay in reporting the Keck spectral results become in itself a noteworthy historical fact as opposed to some individual's "original research"? Synchronist (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

The delay in reporting the Keck spectral results could potentially be added if there is a Reliable Source commenting on it. However in my opinion it would be a poor addition, unless it becomes a particularly significant story. It would likely be deleted as trivia as soon as the results are published and we add them to the article. It's not unusual for scientists to want to thoroughly analyze data, and get independent review, before publishing. Alsee (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Total number of such stars in our galaxy

And based on the Kepler FOV and its orientation in respect to the galactic plane, how many additional stars of the Tabby variety might we expect to find in our galaxy? Or is the sample of one -- and this in respect to both the Kepler data set and our current quite unique star -- too prohibitive from a mathematical perspective in terms of making some predictions? But if a brave enough mathematician were to come up with a total, it would be quite interesting to compare this with existing estimates of the number of earth-like planets in our galaxy, and which I think is on the order of 10**9. Synchronist (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Synchronist: FWIW - perhaps helpful (esp to extrapolate results somewhat further)? => seems there may be at least an estimated "two trillion galaxies in the observable universe" and "more stars than there are grains of sand on planet Earth" - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

OK you geniuses out there, Drbogdan has dipped his toe into the cosmic ocean -- anyone else want to wade in deeper?!? Synchronist (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Only Alexander makes predictions based on a sample size of one, and no clue what you're looking at. When little green men 1 was discovered there turned out to be around 200,000 in the galaxy. However WP:Not forum seems to apply here. Alsee (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, my friend -- cool your jets, dude!

Yes, I realize that it must be excruciating, and as I have already acknowledged in this thread, to make predictions based on a sample size of one: but that's all we have to go on!

And in using the term "little green men", you seem to imply a prejudice against the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence -- but I am certain that you do not believe that we are the only intelligent species in the entire universe. Synchronist (talk) 04:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

With a minor shift, we can go from a sample size of one to a huge sample size. This is a puzzling unexplained phenomena. How many puzzling unexplained phenomena have there been in the last hundred years? (A lot.) How many have turned out be aliens? (Zero.) Zero out of a lot is a close approximation of the chance that any unexplained phenomena will turn out to be aliens. That is approximate, therefore the chance is not precisely zero. A 0% chance of a historically-gigantic result is worth investigating. However it is unreasonable to approach any unexplained phenomena with a credulous expectation that the answer actually is going to be ghosts or UFOs.

The alien-hypothesis has been a particularly noteworthy point of discussion in Reliable Sources, therefore it should be covered in the article. However we need to ensure that this article does not sensationalize a hypothesis which Reliable Sources consider to be substantially non-credible.

Regarding my personal views, I expect there is approximately a 100% chance that there is other life in the universe. If there is other life, then then number of planets with life is almost certainly huge. If there are a huge number of planets with life, I would expect the probability of intelligent life to be approximately 100%. Given the age of the universe, it is puzzling that we haven't yet seen any evidence of intelligence. That does not alter the expectation that any particular anomaly has essentially zero likelihood of being due to intelligence. I expect that evidence of intelligence will be unmistakable, if and when we see it. I'd say that KIC_8462852's very natural-looking pattern of dimming is an exceptionally poor SETI candidate.

And per WP:Not forum, article talk pages should not be used for random topic-chat. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how your speculation/questions in this section relate to any potential edits to the article. Alsee (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Alsee and Synchronist: Thank you for your comments - FWIW - seems a clear result (if possible) to the original question above (ie, Total number of such stars in our galaxy?) may be worth adding to the "KIC 8462852" article imo atm - yes - *entirely* agree - detecting another "KIC 8462852" type-star within the same Kepler FOV may be a very, very remote possibility - but, as stated, even a 0% chance re this particular FOV may have (statistically) some particular +/- variation - a maximum chance (+2sd limit? - if it were possible to determine?) may give some (theoretically) maximum limit result, I would think - if so, extrapolating this maximum limit result to the rest of our galaxy (and, further, to the rest of the universe?) may be worth considering for the article - esp if there is relevant cited support re the (statistical?) calculation(s) from "WP:RS" of course - re personal thoughts about E.T.: by coincidence, one of my recently published "NYT" comments (in part) may be relevant, at least to some extent => " ... My thinking at the moment - Does the Universe contain Life? - yes, of course - on Earth, at least - Are we alone? - no, of course not - Life thrives wherever we are - at the microorganism level, at the very minimum. Further - There may be many technically clever Life-forms in the Universe - many such Life-forms may be present in the Universe at the moment - or - in times past - but since space is so widespread and time is so wideranging - such technically clever Life-forms may not ever know of each other ..." - in any regards - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Available data could be used to calculate a probable-maximum for the prevalence of similar stars. However it would require several underlying assumptions, and expert analysis. That's not something we could generate ourselves. (If someone tried, it would go way way beyond WP:CALC.) If anyone finds a reliable source addressing that question, that might make it into the article. Alsee (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well said, Alsee and Drbogdan; and ah!, the cosmic absurdity of it all, in which we lonely humans look out across a vast universe, but are challenged by its paradoxical nature to retain our own civility and sense of humor -- and I think we are doing a pretty darn good job! Synchronist (talk) 03:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Citizen Science

My dear fellow Wikipedians: please forgive me for coming across as an agitator, but I am in fact merely expressing the intense interest which all of us feel regarding this enigmatic star; and given that it was we citizen scientists who called attention in the first place to its strange behavior (and no, I am not one of those who poured over the Kepler data, but merely a citizen who, as an astronomy nut from the fourth grade on, has given his [tacit] blessing to the allocation of my tax dollars to NASA and the NSF), one would suppose that those astronomers would have the courtesy of attempting to keep us abreast of what was happening, and this by releasing at least a summary of the spectroscopic data that was collected now some three months ago!; and yes, I recognize that among my fellow Wikipedians are those who believe that we must defer endlessly and without question to those professional astronomers -- but I myself am a bit more egalitarian (and also a resident of Louisiana, and some of whose tax dollars are going directly to LSU to keep Dr. Boyajian afloat): come on, guys and gals, what does this spectroscopic data look like at first take?!? Synchronist (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know which measurement exactly you refer to, but this blog discussed various spectroscopic results. --mfb (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear mfb, re the link you've kindly provided, I see basic star magnitude data, but not spectroscopic data -- what am I missing, or where should I be looking? Synchronist (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I doubt that discussion of your taxes will be on-topic here. Do you have any citable sources we can use to write about spectroscopic data? Alsee (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Some of the 50 blog updates discuss spectroscopy. I don't want to click through all of them to find where exactly. --mfb (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Alsee, I think we are agreeing with each other without realizing it: other than the Liverpool results, there is no professional spectroscopic data to be reported. And why the professional astronomers can't release a summary of their raw data is beyond me; and in the interim, we Wikipedians -- starved, like rats in a cage, for information -- are attacking each other over how many decimal places to use! Synchronist (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"Starved, like rats"? "Attacking each other"? That's quite the over-dramatisation. The decimal issue was simply a disagreement. I still feel the figures are now inappropriately imprecise, but I have no interest in pressing the issue. Complaining about the spectroscopic data on Wikipedia isn't going to get you anywhere. Why not leave a comment on the latest blog entry at the Where's the Flux website. Perhaps Tabby and team can provide the answers you're looking for. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Huntster, your point is well taken that I really ought to be taking this to the Where's the Flux site. But guess what! Unless I've missed something in my several visits to that site, one has to have a Facebook account in order to post comments! (Dr. Boyajian's idea, I suppose, of democratizing the process.) So my hope and expectation has been that the astronomers involved with KIC 8462852 visit this Wikipedia article pretty often, and notice the implicit, if not explicit, call for more openness. And of course that has also been part of my purpose here, to try to enlist explicit support for such a call -- but, vis-a-vis the digits thing, I have to apologize for going about it in the wrong way. Synchronist (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

And -- just to be sure that everyone understands that my goal here is not just to stir up trouble, but to improve this article -- here is the real tragedy with the professional astronomers withholding their spectroscopic data from us citizen scientists until they decide to descend from their ivory towers with the "official" interpretation: this article could be about science history and methodology as well as prescriptive science if we Wikipedians were allowed to participate in the interpretation of the all-important spectroscopic data; but as it stands now, we are going to be reduced to providing a reference to an article in Nature or Science (and to which article, by the way, we will not have direct access!). Wikipedia has had an important role in the interpretation of other emerging events -- so why not now? Because we are only only "citizen" scientists, capable of sorting through raw data, but not -- like "real" scientists -- capable of interpreting it? Synchronist (talk) 05:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

No, we editors do not interpret anything. We report what others have written in reliable sources. See WP:There is no deadline and WP:No original research. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Dear Huntster: I had hoped that you would provide a sanity check on my claim that Dr. Boyajian's site requires a Facebook account in order to be able to post comments; but putting that aside, I appreciate your engagement here -- and you have of course cited the proper and relevant Wikipedia guideline, WP:No original research.

However, Wikipedia's policies are in a constant state of evolution and refinement, and it has been my contention all along (see "Straight-off-the-email-list speculation" and "Interregnum Cruise Science & the Scientific Paper Publication Cycle" above) that Wikipedia should modify this policy in respect to its coverage of current/transient events, and particularly in light of the remarkable decision of an encyclopedia to cover such events in the first place.

And In this regard, it's interesting to note that you've also cited WP:There is no deadline, because this article, as acknowledged in its introduction, in fact cites opposing views on the subject of deadlines and the posture which Wikipedia should take in respect to transient events, and two of which in particular suggest that a sense of urgency is in some cases appropriate -- and thus that my own ideas here deserve at least a hearing:

"There is a deadline‍—‌or many small deadlines‍—‌we aren't aware of. People die, move away from editing or reading, Little Johnny's homework is due. Meanwhile, we have articles that have been unreferenced for several years, articles that have been stubs since 2001 and so forth‍—‌and the amount of identified work keeps growing. Without continual improvement and automation the potential of Wikipedia will be only partially fulfilled‍—‌moreover without a sense of urgency these things will not be done in a timely fashion."

"Information is being lost in the real world all the time. Wikipedia is an opportunity to ensure that it isn't, before it's too late."

So I will summarize here my own views on why a prohibition against interpretation should be relaxed in respect to a transient event such as KIC 8462852's dimmings -- and then I will shut up: 1) Given that, by definition, some information is missing during a transient event, it can become impossible to write in a meaningful manner about such an event without at least some degree of inference (see "Yosemite Canyon" example above); and 2) especially during deliberately-moving events like the dimmings, there exists the possibility that "on-the-fly" interepretation of data can lead to an insight that might in turn suggest a new and decisive observational strategy. In respect to the second of these points, for example, it is not out of the question that, were the raw KIC 8462852 spectroscopic data to be released, a knowledgeable Wikipedian might post an interpretation to the effect that "I observe 'A' and 'B' in the data, and therefore we ought to be looking for 'C'." Synchronist (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

The latest flurry of findings

So, just by way of trying to get a grip on the latest flurry of findings, both observational and theoretical, have the original Liverpool spectroscopic observations -- that there is essentially no change in KIC 8462852's spectroscopic signature during the dimmings -- been contradicted? Synchronist (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Isaac Arthur's video

I'm not sure whether it is appropriate to add, or into which section it should be added, but Youtuber Isaac Arthur did a video on this star on his channel that goes into good detail on the hypotheses. The link is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVCpBr3fxdE. If someone can fit this in, great. Otherwise, just delete this comment. Chadlupkes (talk) 00:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, Chadlupkes, an apparently quite thoughtful piece -- and no one at this point has the final answer! -- and so I've plugged it into the "External Links" section.Synchronist (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All the recent edits

@Drbogdan: Is it really necessary to link to an archived page, and then to update this every day? It makes finding actual changes to the article much harder because your daily edits flood the whole edit history, typically without really changing the article. What would be wrong with a link to the actual page, and adding an archive link only if necessary? --mfb (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Mfb: Thanks - yes - agreed - no problem whatsoever - was considering this as well - event seemed to be an ongoing current star dimming worth considering on a daily basis (for those interested) - and archiving the related observation text reports (since text reports change daily, based on near-daily monitoring by Hereford Arizona Observatory, on the webpage at => http://www.brucegary.net/ts5/ ) - seemed easy for me to update - but now hope to improve the editing in view of your noted concerns - Thanks again - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - @Mfb: BRIEF Followup - added the following text/ref to relevant sections of the main article =>

Dimming and brightening events of the star continue to be monitored; related light curves are currently updated and released frequently.

Edit updates (esp on a daily basis) may be less necessary I would think. Thanks again for your comments. Drbogdan (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

References

The brown dwarf with rings hypothesis

The hypothesis that KIC 8462852's dimming is caused by an orbiting brown dwarf with its own system of rings seems promising in terms of explaining both the long term and short term pattern of those dimmings; but once again, wouldn't this also cause a massive change in the overall spectral signature? I.e., when are we going to come to terms with the Liverpool data, which shows basically no change in spectral signature during the dimmings? (And am I correct in thinking that the brown dwarf paper never once uses the term "spectrum"?) Synchronist (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The smoking gun: Researchers found less dimming in the infrared light from the star than in its ultraviolet light. Any object larger than dust particles would dim all wavelengths of light equally when passing in front of Tabby's Star.

References

The article does mention the negative Liverpool spectral results, and I expect that text will eventually be revised or dropped from the article once scientists have more time to reconcile the multiple spectral observations. The ringed-dwarf model appears to explain the data extremely well. However we may have to wait for the 1600-day cycle to repeat before we really get to overhaul this article as 'case closed'. Alsee (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, could you point me at the mention of negative spectral results in the Landau article?Synchronist (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Synchronist, your post confused me for a few minutes. Then I realized it was because an ambiguity in my post had confused you. The Landau article only mentions a positive difference in spectra. When I said "The article does mention the negative Liverpool spectral results", I was referring to the Wikipedia article mentioning Liverpool. Our article says "Initial spectra with FRODOSpec at the two-meter Liverpool Telescope showed no changes visible between a reference spectrum and this dip. Several observatories, however, including the twin Keck telescopes (HIRES) and numerous citizen science observatories, acquired spectra of the star, showing a dimming dip that had a complex shape". It seems likely that the initial Liverpool results were either wrong or inadequate for detecting the spectral signature, but when we have conflicting sources we report both unless&until reliable sources come to sufficient agreement on the issue. Alsee (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

January 3 paper in AJ Letters

I have added the paper itself as an external link because I did not use it as a source directly. For that, I have the plain-English National Geographic writeup, which also supplied the SETI director quote. @Robertinventor: told me that the new study also disproves some of the other hypotheses (in addition to alien megastructures), so the rest of the article may be in need of an update. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Yes the latest research disproves many of the hypotheses. They strongly favour circumstellar dust as the top hypothesis, though there are still other hypotheses that are viable involving intrinsic variability of the star and some other ideas including a huge interstellar black hole debris disk in between us and the star (see [1]) which Jason Wright still thinks is a viable though less likely hypothesis.

In particular, there was no neutral sodium and no ionized calcium which rules out most hypothesees involving neutral or ionized gas according to Jason Wright - at least down to the signal to noise ratio of the observations. If there is any gas then there isn't much of it present.

For details of what they have found explained in a less technical way than the paper, see the second part of his post about the findings in the article he co-authored here: [2]. The observations strongly favour very fine dust, less than one micron in diameter- but rather a narrow range of dust grain sizes and larger than is typical of interstellar dust (see end of section 3.1 of the paper [3] which cites earlier work in 2016 on the dust size). So - the preferred hypothesis is very fine dust, cirumstellar and not associated with either ionized or neutral gas. Altnernatively it may be due to intrinsic variability of the star but some of the hypotheses of that type are ruled out. The Jason Wright post goes into this in detail in part 2.

I agree the article needs to be worked on to make this clear - we need to retain the disproved hypotheses since readers will want to know the status of them but make clear which are the most strongly favoured contenders as a result of this latest publication. Robert Walker (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

The circumstellar dust hypothesis, though it fits the data so well - is not without problems - they need to explain how such fine dust - and also optically thin (not so clumped as to be opaque) can survive without being blown away from the star. As Jason Wright says in his blog post the remaining hypotheses still all have problems but other hypotheses have been ruled out pretty much completely. Robert Walker (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

With the salient point of this discussion being the number of "loose ends" connected with the January 2018 "mega-paper" and the now-dominant dust cloud hypothesis, please allow me to first establish a clarification, and then throw yet another "monkey wrench" into the works: the 2018 mega-paper is to be congratulated for having a quite nice "summary of findings", and one of which -- as per the drum which I have been beating for several months -- is that there is in fact no change in spectral signature during the dimming events! With the understanding that this does not rule out from a physics standpoint the dust hypothesis -- a spectral signature being of course a function of gaseous atom electrons jumping from one orbital to another, whereas differential color absorption is a function, in part, of intervening particle size -- do we not always use "dust" and "gas" together in speaking of astronomical phenomenon; i.e., are there examples of known dust-based structures -- i.e., the rings of Saturn -- which do not have an associated spectral signature? And I ask this question in all honesty. Synchronist (talk) 05:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Synchronist: First sorry for the delay in this reply. Yes that's an interesting question. There was no sign of any spectral extinction or emission lines. Yet there was plenty of reddening suggesting selective absorption of the shorter wavelenths and so probably dust. So that suggests a lot of dust and not much gas. Usually there is either only gas, or gas mixed in with dust.

Anyway I've tried to find out more. And yes seems, this is something of a puzzle, for instance comets would normally have gas mixed in with the dust. That was an argument against the comet hypothesis until someone came up with a model where the comets are in a very elliptical orbit and then the comets outgas when close to the star - and what we see is the dusty coma from the rest of their orbit. Another difficulty is the lack of an infrared excess - what happens to the absorbed light if it doesn't turn into heat? And the dust is so fine - the finer dust - that it must be constantly replenished - so how does that work? Anyway the comet idea with the very elliptical orbits (not surprising for comets) is here: [4]

As I don't know the answer, I thought I'd post it as a question to the Tabby's star reddit here: [5]. Do join in and comment on the discussion there if you wish to. Hopefully get some replies as the reddit is quite active. Robert Walker (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: @Synchronist: You may be interested, new paper by Jason Wright . It could be useful for a rewrite of this article - it lists the main remaining contenders now that it is close to certain that what we are seeing there is dust with no or hardly any gas. The main ones are

• Not instrumental effects - completely ruled out
• Polar spots unlikely
• Could be interstellar dust. Normally the dust is associated with gas but it could be that the dust and gas separate out on the small length scales involved in transits in front of the star and also the sodium lines are saturated - so you wouldn't notice any difference if there was extra neutral gas at the same relative velocity as the known clouds between the star and us.
• The planet eating hypothesis ("post merger") is still viable
• Intrinsic variability of the star has some support. Though it's not clear why it would be so rare that we only see one star like this in the Kepler sample.
• Dust clouds around the star are still a possibility though it is hard to see how this idea can deal with the lack of an infrared excess, and with the presence of some fine dust which should get blown away quickly
• The exocomet idea is hard to reconcile with the lack of gas
• The dust could be created by collisions of dry asteroids far from the star
• Finally the idea of a black hole accretion disk between us and the star remains a viable explanation. The lack of gas could be due to the gas freezing out onto the dust in that situation or because the debris disk leads to unusual abundance patterns.

Robert Walker (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert, many thanks for this thoughtful post, and the link to Jason Wright's new paper. And the larger point (correct me if I am wrong) is that the lack of a spectral signature -- although Jason presents some possibilities for explaining this away -- remains as a key question, and in the absence of a solution to which, there remain around the card table (speaking metaphorically!) a number of viable hands. Synchronist (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Synchronist: @Darkfrog24: Yes that is a good summary. And this article is way out of date as it has not been updated in light of the recent research. I think it needs editing but it's quite a radical rewrite because they have learnt so much since this article was written. I think the old hypotheses need still to be mentioned because it is important for the reader to know they have either been dismissed or are now thought of as unlikely. I suggest that the lede would be top priority, as it does not mention the new research yet.

Here is a first attempt at a summary to add to the lede:

"There is strong evidence for dust from the reddening (blue light obscured more than red), no evidence of gas, and there continues to be no infrared excess, and it is definitely ont being obscured by anything opaque as that would reduce all the light equally. The dust is a mix of coarse and fine sub micron dust with the finer dust particularly puzzling as it would be blown away rapidly if close to a star."

How does that sound? Any comments? And - maybe trim part of the rest of the lede, though it is okay to have long ledes here in Wikipedia so we could just add that as an extra paragraph first if it's agreed it is okay. After deciding on what to do about the lede we could discuss how to deal with the rest of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Robert, we are obviously here dancing around the possibility of eliminating intelligent alien activity as the cause of these dimmings; I deeply appreciate the sensitivity with which you have entered into said dance -- by focusing first on the lede -- and the opportunity you have thereby afforded the alienists among us to perform a "fire dance", arising like a phoenix from the ashes; and so what about this possibility: that we are dealing here with alien "smoke signals" or "sky writing", in which -- as opposed to a rigid and permanent occluding structure -- clouds of particles are periodically released and coaxed into shell-like configurations? Is this plausible from a physics standpoint, keeping in mind both the incredible difficulty -- and the incredible imperative! -- of communicating across interstellar space? I.e., are we in a position to rule out such a possibility, given the several holes in a purely natural explanation? Synchronist (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh we can't rule out it being due to ETs yet, not until we know much more about it. It just seems more unlikely. But the ET hypothesis can explain almost any observation by assuming they use unusual materials or have unexpected objectives. E.g. the blue extinction could be because they have a design that lets red light through - and you need to try to think why they would do that. The lack of infrared excess could be because they beam the infrared away in some particular direction not towards us. Or because they use the collected sunlight to power giant lasers and not for conventional technology so that most of the energy collected is beamed away with a reasonably high efficiency.

If it is dust, well, one idea is that extra terrestrials might "lift material" from a star to create new structures or planets and this might lead to a lot of dust as a byproduct.

I'm not sure how much of this speculation is citable in wikipedia, as it would need to be from reliable sources e.g. publications in journals. But it is much discussed online. See for instance

* Your thoughts on dusty aliens and Dyson motes

* loose talk of #aliens

I like your alien "smoke rings" hypothesis and you might get some responses in those discussions. After all - something like this has indeed caught our attention - and it would any other extra terrestrial intelligence looking at the skies.

BTW there were several responses already to the post I made to that reddit about your dust question. It's had around 11 upvotes and is near the top of the list of topics for the reddit. One interesting suggestion I've never seen before - what if it is ice crystals from geysers, maybe from very large Centaur like objects that come close to the host star and produce Enceladus style geysers? The debris from those geysers that from the Saturn E ring is an almost perfect match for the size distribution they observed. Someone there has just posted suggesting that we could test for this hypothesis by looking for the absorption peaks due to water vapour or ice during a significant dimming. They say that with the Enceladus plumes they spotted a strong signal at 2.9 microns. [6]

As for mentioning this in the article, well there is that post by the astrophysicist recently discussed in the reddit: David Hogg - he tweeted: "I don't understand why the reddening of the Boyajian star is understood to "rule out" aliens. Who knows that much about aliens? I think it just "supports" the interstellar dust hypothesis." and wrote that thought provoking blog post they discussed on the reddit: loose talk of #aliens

I think it might possibly be enough of a WP:RS to be mentioned here, but we'd need to discuss this on the talk page first probably as it is somewhat grey area. But it is a tweet and blog post by a respected astrophysicist. Is it appropriate to use it here as a cite for a section on whether the aliens hypothesis is still viable? What else is needed to establish it as a suitable cite if not? Or what other type of a cite do we need to look for to add a section on this topic? Any thoughts anyone? Robert Walker (talk) 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm! And maybe the long-term dimming -- if there in fact has been such -- is due to the "smoke rings" -- and these whether due to geysers (which seems highly plausible) or alien activity or whatever -- being continuously blown away from the star such that it is being shrouded in a permanent mantle? And note that my purpose in bringing up these possibilities -- and I think yours as well -- is not so much to suggest their specific inclusion in the article, but rather to maintain article quality by insuring that it continue to encompass potential such solutions. Synchronist (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed - yes that would be the idea. The fine ice dust would be constantly blown away but constantly replenished, from the interior of the icy worlds with their geysers. And yes that is my intent. I think it is an idea to keep an eye on such things, watch out for developments, and it helps to keep in mind these possibilities to make sure we don't say things in the article that close them off due to some misreading of the literature on the topic. Since experts are reading that reddit, it's always possible that one of them writes a paper on this if it does indeed have merit - and at that point it could be included here. Obviously at present it is not suitable. We can discuss it in more depth on reddit if necessary, if you want to take part in the discussion there, here of course our focus has to be on improving the quality of this article. Robert Walker (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References

The Big Picture

Can it be possible that we do not yet have a single plot that shows ALL of the dimmings to scale, and on a single time-line, from the first Kepler 20% "mega dimmings" to the more recent of approximately 1% range? Synchronist (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Tabby's Star - Very Rough Draft of All Known Dimmings - From December 2009 to December 2017

 Done - @Synchronist: FWIW - a single plot of all known dimmings of Tabby's Star (December 2009 to December 2017) seems worth considering - my very, very rough draft effort is shown above if interested - a much better plotting is welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Drbogdan, many thanks! Most informative! Synchronist (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, this seems rather pointless, given that the Kepler graph used here is outdated. A 2016 re-analysis of the Kepler lightcurve has shown that KIC 8462852 Faded Throughout the Kepler Mission, rather than staying "flat" between dips. See also Figure 1.1 on Bruce Gary's archived page.Renerpho (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

The only reason the graph is flat is because the data has been filtered and normalised like all the Kepler lightcurves are when looking for transits. It isn't "outdated" per se, it's just one way to present the data. It depends what you want to show, if you just want to show the short-period variability then a normalised lightcurve is best, if you want to show all the modes of the stars' variability then a non-normalised version is better (but also less clear). ChiZeroOne (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

UPDATE: An updated consolidated plot of all known dimmings of "Tabby's star" has been created by "User:Synchronist", and has been added to the main article at "KIC 8462852#Light curve gallery" (replacing the earlier "Very Rough Draft" effort) - related comments/discussion at => "User talk:Drbogdan#Tabby's Star dimming data - consolidated plot" - further improvements to the plot/caption in the "KIC 8462852 main article" welcome of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Consolidated plot of all known dimmings (21 May 2019)

Requested move 8 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

---

KIC 8462852 → Tabby's Star – Per guidelines on commonly recognisable names for article titles. The following reputable sources either preference the use of "Tabby's Star" ahead of "KIC 8462852", or do not even use "KIC 8462852" at all, in their articles or media – Arizona State University [1], Astronomy magazine [2], BBC Science Focus [3], CNET [4], Cosmos magazine [5], EarthSky [6][7], Forbes [8], The Guardian [9], The Independent [10], the Jet Propulsion Laboratory [11], News.com.au [12], The Planetary Society [13], PBS's Nova [14], Science News [15], the SETI Institute [16][17], Sky & Telescope [18], and Space.com [19]. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 08:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nomination information. And per recognizabiliy (the present name looks more like a phone number). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:10, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy move: Just do this, per WP:SNOW. It's clearly WP:COMMONNAME. -- intgr [talk] 15:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support - seems times have changed since 2016 re this issue - Casual Google Searches: "Tabby's star" => 375,000 results (LATEST - 8 September 2019) / (12,300 results - OLD - 25 April 2016); "KIC 8462852" => 204,000 / (305,000); "WTF star" => 39,700 / (55,100); "Boyajian's star" => 12,200 / (1,260) - if interested - earlier similar discussions re this issue are at => "Talk:Tabby's Star/Archive 1#Unofficial names" - and - "Talk:Tabby's Star/Archive 1#Too many names" - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support because it is the common name. Neutrale Person (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support Given that Tabby's Star has become the common name, at least two questions remain: 1) would the article name change somehow go against the grain of Wikipedia's referencing of "reliable sources", in that the IAU has not (yet) approved the renaming, and 2) if the article is thus to pay tribute to Dr. Boyajian, why not with her last name, i.e., Boyajian's Star, as, for example, with Barnard's Star? And in reference to 1), it may well be that the IAU would welcome an indication from the world's largest public body of knowledge that such a name change would be in order; and in reference to 2) the first requirement, if part of the overall goal is to honor Dr. Boyajian, is to ensure that the name change continues to take hold in the public consciousness, and in respect to which it must be noted that "Boyajian's Star" does not trip off the tongue even so well as "Barnard's Star" -- our prime example, thus far, of a really successful person-derived naming. Synchronist (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Synchronist: To answer your questions, 1) common names identified through informed consensus are given preference over official names, and 2) as Drbogdan has researched above, "Boyajian's Star" is used even less than "KIC 8462852" and "WTF star", so it is clearly not the common name here. It has nothing to do with paying tribute, moreso giving the article a clear name that people can recognise from sources, such as the ones I linked in my original proposal, that have discussed the star and referred to it by that name. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 19:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your points are well taken, and with my goal having been to address the professional astronomers who have suggested "Boyajian's Star" as the official name. Synchronist (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• Support, with a heavy heart. IRL, I personally prefer the name "KIC 8462852", and if it isn't used then I prefer "Boyajian's Star". But I have no doubt that "Tabby's Star" is the WP:COMMONNAME, and that the move is justified by Wikipedia's guidelines. Renerpho (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support using the WP:COMMONNAME. Tayste (edits) 01:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. Not opposing, but someone has to stick up for the fact that it sounds like this star is being named after a house cat. That might not stick in the long run. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@WPGA2345: The guidelines relevant to this discussion care more about what's sticking now rather than what might stick in the future, and "Tabby's Star" is currently by far and large the most used name for this star. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 04:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

other strange stars.

there are 4 strange stars including this one , one is mention here as well the EPIC one , there is a 3 that i am still trying to refind and now a 4 called VVV-WIT-07 can some one make a page for this star and also mention it in the article?

1:KIC 8462852(Flickering Adult star)

2:EPIC 204278916(Flickering Proto star)

3:Przybylski’s Star (Adult star with material that you would only expect if a alien race would dump stuff into the star)

4:VVV-WIT-07 (Flickering ? star) [unsure for its stage] Joshoctober16 (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is looking for articles to create, Google turns up plenty of sources for VVV-WIT-07 / VVV WIT 07 and we don't appear to have it yet. Alsee (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

FWIW - a listing of similar strange stars has been created, and may be found at => "List of stars that dim oddly" - hope this helps - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This paper may be of interest: A Search for Analogs of KIC 8462852 (Boyajian's Star): A Proof of Concept and the First Candidates (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ab2e77) EighteenFiftyNine (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Updating current consolidated plot

Does anyone have any objections to updating the current consolidated plot with the following version, which reflects the likely 1,574 day periodicity, and which throws a spotlight on the crucial October 2021 portion of the current observing season? Synchronist (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)