Talk:Wow! signal/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyvio

the latest addition.. posss copywright violation . Article originally from space.com source on net -max rspct 13:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the signal! Well spotted and Just In Time! Reverted to the anterior edition. Cheers -- FayssalF 01:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

Who decided Jerry is an "astrophysicist"? He's actually a stats professor.

72 seconds

Why is 72 seconds of any paricular concern? That needs to be explained. --Exodio 22:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

That's explained by the Space.com article linked as Reference 3. The Big Ear radio telescope was fixed to the Earth; its tracking beams scanned the sky at the speed of Earth's rotation. At that speed, a single signal would take 72 seconds to traverse the telescope's beam (the patch of sky it was scanning) from one end to the other, and would show a gradual peaking as the signal reached the center, then a gradual decrease as it passed out of the beam. Think of a lighthouse beam sweeping across your field of vision. In short, since the Wow! signal lasted 72 seconds, it was most likely a continuously-transmitting signal from a distance that the telescope swept across, and not a nearby sudden burst signal (which was unlike to last precisely 72 seconds and peaking halfway through) like a terrestrial satellite signal or reflection. ANTPogo 02:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Tau Sagittarii...?

Why is Tau Sagittarii implied as the possible source of the Wow! signal? Its location in the sky is well outside the margin of error for its location. Furthermore, it is not "the closest visible star in the night sky to the origin of the 1977 wow signal"; there is a magnitude 5.5 star (HD 183275) only a few arcminutes from the source, and at least a dozen other stars brighter than sixth magnitude (limit of human vision) are closer than Tau Sagittarii, though admittedly Tau Sagittarii is much brighter than any of these, by about two magnitudes. Furthermore, this section of the article ("Location in the night sky") seems to imply that the source must come from a bright star, but this need not be the case. I suggest a revision of this section. --Shawn81 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, could someone include the J2000 translation of the B1950 coordinates? I am not confident to do that myself, and yet am intrigued at the thought that maybe the source of this relates to the galactic center http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_centre and some transient activity there. 67.160.188.13 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)anonymous

Decoding?

I presume people have tried to see if they can make any sense of the 'signal'? This isn't mentioned. On this note, I guess none if it appears to be repeated since if it had, this would be extremely interesting and would have been mentioned (I mean within the one signal). Nil Einne 16:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading a bit more, it doesn't look like the signal appears to have contained much (at least what we received) and the quality of our detection at the time was so poor that we probably wouldn't even be able to understand anything that is there so I guess decoding it irrelevant Nil Einne 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't decode it because they read the intensity of the signal, not any message from it. So, basically, we possibly could have had we recorded it, but we simply recorded intensity, not its content. Titanium Dragon 08:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So we blew it pretty much? Zarathrustra 00:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

No. We are trying to detect a signal originating from extraterrestrial intelligence. Decoding a message would be a lot harder to do, and it would probably have to be a signal intended to be decoded. I've seen some sources say that "6EQUJ5" was an encoded signal, which is preposterous. Each of the letters and digits indicate the strength of the signal at a point in time. Bubba73 (talk), 01:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, on an analogy, they only measured how many decibles loud the signal was, instead of recording the sound on a magnetic tape deck? That is regrettable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.162 (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not regrettable. They are scanning for signals. So, they are trying to find where there is a space recorder in space. After you have found it then you can listen to it. You don't want to waste your time looking at empty space waiting for a signal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.217.86 (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Searches for recurrence

I think it is regrettable that they didn't record both frequencys and wavelengths essentially you are at the very least doubling the amount of data you record and if it really is a SETI you want to try decoding ANY signal even if it is transient. It may have been an anomoly or a glitch with one horn or a ship perhaps. I assume SETI@Home is searching an area (as of 2010) 33 light years in diameter (if Einstein is correct that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light). If we have banned the use of frequencies around that emitted by photons from Hydrogen why would we expect ET's to use it? Perhaps they are doing the same thing we are? My personal opinion is that we detected the tail end of some cosmic event. I'm not an astronomer so I can't speculate what that is but it seems likely. 203.171.196.131 (talk) 11:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Dave Fegredo

Paranormal?

What is paranormal about the WOW signal? I suggest that we remove the paranormal wikiproject tag, unless someone can give reasons why it is paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 03:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's paranormal because it wasn't normal (ie. Paranormal), and probably came from a source outside earth. It is, at best, impossible to prove that didn't come from outer space, so the possibility that it did has to be taken into account, which gives it that air of a paranormal event. Zarathrustra 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been shown that it didn't come from Earth. However, just because something didn't come from the Earth doesn't mean that it is paranormal. Bubba73 (talk), 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no indication that it was paranormal, so I'm removing the paranormal Project tag. Bubba73 (talk), 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal is something that can have NO rational explanation. The WOW signal can have numerous "Normal" explanations. It is normal for some form of life to evolve elsewhere in the universe. The likelyhood that we are alone in this mind bogglingly huge space with billions of stars and most likely billions of planets is so remote that it defies belief. Life doesn't have to be intelligent. Also WOW could have been some normal cosmic event that we happened upon by chance and because we can't screen the entire sky all at once billions of light years away we may have missed this "normal" event hundred or millions of times.203.171.196.131 (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Dave Fegredo

Not enough lay translation in the article

This is a good article but slips into scientifically insular explanations. Wikipedia is for a wider audience than just scientists.

Example: The existance of a brief pattern of intense signal, and some of the mathematics of this 'intensity burst' are described, but nowhere does the article explain to the average reader WHY signal intensity means anything in terms of a possible intelligent extraterrestrial transmission.

Scientists have a responsibilty to communicate clearly (where possible) with the public. This relationship is what funds more science-- and the purpose of science is, in large part, public service anyway.Sean7phil 05:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Query

No doubt someone has suggested this query before, but there is no mention of it in the article and - if it has been suggested - perhaps there should be... Searches of the same spot found no indication of a recurrence oif the signal, which is perhaps surprising, if and only if it is assumed that the source of it were stationary. If we for a moment consider the remote possibility that the signal was from some alien intelligence, why is there the assumption that it is not from some craft, rather than from a fixed point? Given the slightly skewed signal strength (stronger in the latter part of the sweep), it is possible that the source was far closer than the researchers thought, and moving.

I'm not bringing this up to launch a discussion on the signal's origin here - instead I'm basically saying that this seems to me a fairly simple speculation, and one that must have been made while analysing the signal. If so, there should be at least some mention of it in the article, which seems to imply that all later searches for the signal scanned the same part of the sky. Grutness...wha? 01:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just speculation but the assumption may have been that a transmitter powerful enough to produce a signal that reached as far as it did must have been too massive to be portable. Like I said though, that's just a wild guess. There may have been actual evidence that the signal came from a stationary source though -- I'd have to research it further. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the probably of an alien craft in our solar system is just too improbable to consider. Paul Studier (talk) 02:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, so if you think about it is the chance of finding a radio signal from an alien intelligence by doing random sweeps. Given the size of the wow signal it just seems odd if the possibility was not even considered by someone in the astronomy community. Grutness...wha? 06:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sound Template

There should be one. 71.188.51.22 (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument?

The article is well-written and unbiased but there must be some conservative, stubborn scientist out there who strongly disagrees with the idea that the signal is proof of alien life. Seems like there are always strong rebuttals to other supposed extraterrestrial events by some physicist or scientist or astronomer that can logically explain the event. So anyway I'd like to see a section referring to the non-believers out there, just to provide a different view point. There must be some credible source that refutes this theory. Let's see it. TripOnMyShip (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The article may have changed significantly since you wrote this, but in its present state, it doesn't seem to show any POV of the type you're talking about.--76.167.77.165 (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow! signal ogg audio

The audio ogg file isn't explained, and the source apparently comes from a youtube video which has no sound nor links to sound etc. Is there even any higher fidelity data on the signal beyond those 6 values on the print-out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.210.49 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of the audio file. First, it is not the actual sound of the signal, which came in at far above the human range. Moreover, the signal was not recorded with any more detail than "6EQUJ5". Second, its source is suspect. The licensing says it's from the US government but the source is YouTube and the author is "SETI". Sorry, this does not pass muster. Madman (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wow! signal is not a sound...

So please don't add this article to the "Unidentified sounds" category. It's a radio signal, and it was originally observed and recorded using a paper printout, not via conversion to audio. Note that the other articles in the "Unidentified sounds" category are actual sounds. That's where the "sounds" part of "Unidentified sounds" comes in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otterfan (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Could this radio signal with a frequency within the range of Hydrogen absorbing and emitting photons be some sort of nuclear blast? Like a hydrogen bomb of the simplicity of the first atomic weapons. Does anyone know what the frequencies emitted by those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and test weapons are. Perhaps what was detected was an atomic explosion in space. 1977 was a critical time in world politics. Perhaps some country (I blame the US. No seriously the USSR,US,UK,France etc) were playing around with weapons in space a. To destroy or divert a comet/asteroid or b. to see what would happen on Earth if a nuclear weapon was deployed and detonated in space. I'm talking way out in the solar system. The smallest explosion possible would only cause a brief flash of light but the radio signal would be quite strong. That's just an assumtion.203.171.196.131 (talk) 11:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Dave Fegredo

Removed sentence: protected spectrum

"Also, the 1420 MHz signal is problematic in itself in that it is "protected spectrum" or bandwidth in which terrestrial transmitters are forbidden to transmit."

After this sentence was tagged as unsourced for a month or so and no one provided any reference, I have removed it now. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

A month is certainly not very long for a citation to go unresearched, particularly for a statement that seems relatively reasonable. If this were important to you, you could have researched it yourself. It took me about 5 minutes to find a reputable source (NASA). Let's be careful. Madman (talk) 13:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done my research. According to WP:V unsourced information should be removed at sight:

"I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

A month seems completely reasonable to me but the statement did not. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Eleasser, I believe you may have misunderstood WP:V. The above quote re the aggressive removal of unsourced claims, as opposed to tagging them as needing a citation, is specific to the use of unsourced claims in living persons' biographies. I do NOT believe there is any mandate for removing unsourced material, in general, 'on sight'. Moreover, for an article that doesn't get too much traffic, a month may not have been long enough. Li3crmp (talk) 12:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In any case, this seems to be relevant only for the US so please cite a source that claims this spectrum is "protected" in all countries. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 13:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if there is a worldwide ban on all transmissions oon this frequency there is still a possibility of accidential (spurious) or illegal transmissions appearing on it surely ? 213.40.220.196 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

??

I dont get it...whats so great about 6EOUJ5?? 75.165.100.230 (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

U corresponds to a signal 30 times the average noise, so it could not happen just by a random fluctuation. It could be little green men, a software bug, a hardware error, local interference, or perhaps outright fraud, but it is definitely not random noise. Paul Studier (talk) 00:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not random noise? How can anyone tell for sure this is not random noise? We're talking about statistics, right? Then it's by no means impossible. Just because it's very very unlikely, doesn't mean it's impossible. All you have to do is to look long enough--and sometime you will detect even such striking anomalies. Thus random noise is not ruled out. Zero Thrust (talk) 15:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Anybody knows how to properly pronounce "Ehman"? Need that for translation. -- Wesha (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Signal region of space

I ran the region of space covered by the Big Ear telescope through a star chart program (Cartes du Ceil) and made a list of all of the objects within the parameters of the program's capability. This is the list of objects:

Chicago 2010-7-6  15h10m Center  19h29m46.8s -26�12'00" Width: +01�53'53" Magnitude: 9.5 Cat: DSL hip WDS GVC BSC SKY SAC 

   19h31m16.57s -25�44'12.9"   * HIP   96012 mV: 7.28 b-v: 1.25 sp:K0/K1III     pmRA:-0.013 pmDE:-0.058 px:0.0064 Dist:509.6 light years BT:8.92 VT:7.436 V-I:1.21 Hpmag:7.4454 Hpscat:0.008 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h32m52.93s -26�01'41.2"   * HIP   96139 mV: 7.65 b-v: 0.35 sp:F0IV/V       pmRA:-0.024 pmDE: 0.000 px:0.0083 Dist:393.0 light years BT:8.058 VT:7.689 V-I:0.41 Hpmag:7.7367 Hpscat:0.013 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h26m42.17s -26�19'06.1"   * HIP   95604 mV: 7.75 b-v: 0.09 sp:A0V          pmRA: 0.005 pmDE:-0.019 px:0.0028 Dist:1164.9 light years BT:7.859 VT:7.76 V-I:0.1 Hpmag:7.7885 Hpscat:0.011 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h30m57.60s -25�32'02.9"   * HIP   95971 mV: 8.39 b-v: 0.18 sp:A3V          pmRA: 0.001 pmDE:-0.016 px:0.0061 Dist:534.7 light years BT:8.604 VT:8.406 V-I:0.2 Hpmag:8.4557 Hpscat:0.014 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h27m24.81s -26�11'57.7"   * HIP   95655 mV: 9.30 b-v: 0.63 sp:G0V          pmRA: 0.008 pmDE:-0.052 px:0.0089 Dist:366.5 light years BT:9.982 VT:9.291 V-I:0.69 Hpmag:9.4299 Hpscat:0.012 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h32m45.18s -26�09'46.6"   * HIP   96130 mV: 9.80 b-v:-0.08 sp:B1/B2II      pmRA: 0.002 pmDE: 0.000 px:0.0040 Dist:815.4 light years BT:9.702 VT:9.91 V-I:-0.05 Hpmag:9.7852 Hpscat:0.022 VarPer:0.0 pa:0.0 sep:0.0 Dmag:0.0
   19h29m00.00s -25�40'00.0"  D* NGC 6797         ESO 525-**10       const: SGR D:        m:      sbr:      desc: neb w *9 att f;Corwin = 4 stars UK Schmidt                                                                  
   19h28m22.05s -26�44'43.4"  V*  720905 V0905 Sgr  T:RRAB       m: P  14.90/ 15.40 P:    0.6547620296
   19h29m37.71s -25�48'06.2"  V*   12068 NSV  12068 -26 14237  T:-     NSV  m: V   8.90/       P:
   19h26m42.00s -26�19'00.0"  D* SEE 375       m: 7.50/12.00 1897: 12.6"/167� 1939: 12.7"/167� Sp:A0V       n:pD DM:-26 14192
   19h28m30.00s -26�00'00.0"  D* HJ 5119       m:10.04/10.40 1834:  3.0"/290� 1991:  5.2"/291� Sp:F2V       n:p  DM:-26 14220
   19h29m00.00s -25�40'00.0"  D* FIN  11       m: 9.88/11.82 1925:  1.8"/288� 1992:  2.1"/286� Sp:G3V       n:p  DM:-25 14078
   19h31m16.56s -25�44'13.4"   * HD183575 SAO188231 CD-25 14115 mV: 7.30 B-V: 1.25 sp:K0  pm:-0.013 -0.058
   19h32m52.91s -26�01'41.2"   * HD183924 SAO188263 CD-26 14281 mV: 7.65 B-V: 0.34 sp:F0  pm:-0.024  0.000
   19h26m42.18s -26�19'06.2"   * HD182649 SAO188125 CD-26 14192 mV: 7.75 B-V: 0.08 sp:A2  Dbl: 12.60"/ 4.50m pm: 0.005 -0.018
   19h30m57.60s -25�32'03.0"   * HD183500 SAO188217 CD-25 14109 mV: 8.39 B-V: 0.18 sp:A0  pm: 0.001 -0.016
   19h28m49.44s -25�53'55.1"   * HD183090 SAO188173 CD-26 14226 mV: 8.54 B-V: 0.44 sp:F0  pm: 0.021 -0.013
   19h27m23.55s -25�56'07.8"   * HD182796 SAO188137 CD-26 14198 mV: 8.81 B-V: 0.50 sp:G0  pm: 0.009  0.006
   19h29m37.79s -25�48'07.2"   * HD183248 SAO188185 CD-26 14237 mV: 8.83 B-V: 0.46 sp:F8  pm: 0.009 -0.012
   19h29m10.68s -25�45'32.7"   * HD183150 SAO188179 CD-26 14233 mV: 8.84 B-V: 1.30 sp:K2  pm:-0.004  0.001
   19h29m55.43s -26�51'27.5"   * HD183290 SAO188195 CD-27 14005 mV: 9.08 B-V: 1.16 sp:K0  pm: 0.001 -0.005
   19h27m29.53s -26�12'26.7"   * HD182817 SAO188143 CD-26 14200 mV: 9.12 B-V: 0.48 sp:G0  pm: 0.003 -0.057
   19h28m53.72s -25�50'09.4"   *          SAO188176 CD-26 14228 mV: 9.18 B-V: 1.35 sp:K2  pm: 0.005 -0.009
   19h27m24.81s -26�11'58.2"   * HD182797 SAO188138 CD-26 14199 mV: 9.22 B-V: 0.62 sp:G0  pm: 0.008 -0.052
   19h31m40.50s -25�59'39.2"   * HD183668 SAO188240 CD-26 14262 mV: 9.23 B-V: 1.27 sp:K0  pm: 0.012 -0.018
   19h29m45.83s -25�40'41.6"   * HD183274 SAO188188 CD-25 14090 mV: 9.38 B-V: 0.29 sp:A5  pm: 0.007  0.000
   19h30m42.46s -25�35'32.0"   * HD183451 SAO188212 CD-25 14104 mV: 9.39 B-V: 0.92 sp:G5  pm: 0.050 -0.056
   19h26m59.55s -26�46'60.0"   * HD182705 SAO188129 CD-27 13960 mV: 9.45 B-V: 0.66 sp:G5  pm: 0.029 -0.022
   19h28m48.21s -25�45'08.1"   * HD183068 SAO188172 CD-26 14224 mV: 9.59 B-V: 0.71 sp:G5  pm:-0.003 -0.008
   19h31m00.02s -26�11'12.4"   *          SAO188218 CD-26 14253 mV: 9.68 B-V: 1.33 sp:K0  pm: 0.001 -0.012
   19h32m20.45s -26�21'46.4"   *          SAO188251 CD-26 14271 mV: 9.75 B-V: 1.73 sp:K5  pm: 0.001 -0.001
   19h29m02.46s -25�40'00.9"   * HD183136 SAO188177 CD-25 14078 mV: 9.76 B-V: 1.10 sp:G5  Dbl:  1.80"/ 2.60m pm: 0.010 -0.014
   19h32m45.18s -26�09'46.6"   * HD183899 SAO188259 CD-26 14280 mV: 9.80 B-V:-0.08 sp:B   pm: 0.002  0.000
   19h32m10.28s -26�04'12.3"   *          SAO188247 CD-26 14269 mV: 9.97 B-V: 1.48 sp:K2  pm: 0.004  0.000
   19h29m36.79s -26�52'01.4"   * HD183233 SAO188184 CD-27 13998 mV:10.04 B-V: 0.31 sp:F5  pm: 0.004 -0.016
   19h28m08.98s -26�37'00.3"   *          SAO188156 CD-26 14211 mV:10.06 B-V: 1.24 sp:G5  pm:-0.003 -0.004
   19h28m13.88s -26�36'12.0"   *          SAO188159 CD-26 14215 mV:10.40 B-V: 0.41 sp:F8  pm: 0.028 -0.005
   19h29m18.52s -26�34'01.1"   *          SAO188182 CD-26 14234 mV:10.64 B-V: 0.65 sp:F8  pm:-0.018 -0.029

  In the list there are 38 Objects.  ***** End of list.

Note a predominance of F, G, and K stars. If there was indeed an extraterrestrial signal detected in this region that was known as the Wow! signal, this area is likely to produce something along these lines owing to the number of the types of stars involved. Many are sun-like and quiescent singles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinmzabbo (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good data. I'd be interested to grow this article with a section on any systems within the observed region around which planets have been detected. To avoid speculation, we'd need to avoid suggesting likely candidates, especially given the nascent technology used to detect planets (in that less likely candidate systems would be among the more easy-to-detect based on the pre-Kepler discoveries to date). Hiberniantears (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Timing oddity

According to this reference, Big Ear had dual feeds and scanned different portions of the sky. The WOW signal was received in one of the two, and then promptly disappeared when the second took over. This strikes me as rather more interesting than the article notes, as it notes nothing at all about this. Does anyone have a reference that talks about this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad terminology

This line confuses the meaning of epoch and equinox.

"Converted into the J2000.0 epoch, the coordinates become RA= 19h25m31s ± 10s or 19h28m22s ± 10s and declination= −26°57′ ± 20′"

B1950 or J2000 is the equinox of the coordinates not the epoch, unless you're talking about what the coordinates were on Besselian date B1950.0 or or Julian Date J2000.0. The epoch is the timing of an observation or an event. In other words, the epoch of the Wow! signal is J1977.6174 regardless of what equinox its coordinates they are given in. SETIGuy (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the diagram.

In the diagram Wow_signal_location, the star marked as Chi_3 is in most other sources marked as Chi_2.[User talk:Old wombat|talk]]) 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Engrypten of the different information layers : Cannot be understood!

This part is complete nonsense to me. If someone has more info on that, please proceed to write... (does engrypten even exist as a word?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.119.71.217 (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect Terminology

I'm going to fix the following problem that should have been fixed years ago.

B1950 or J2000 is the equinox of the coordinates not the epoch, unless you're talking about what the coordinates were on Besselian date B1950.0 or or Julian Date J2000.0. The epoch is the timing of an observation or an event, the equinox of the coordinate system defined which coordinate system is being used. In other words, the epoch of the Wow! signal is J1977.6174 regardless of what equinox its coordinates are given in. SETIGuy (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised it was undone with no comment. You would think understanding the difference between equinox and epoch would be important. Equinox specifies a coordinate system. Epoch specifies a time. For example, the coordinates in the Hipparcos Catalog are equinox J2000 (actually ICRS) but it is Epoch J1991.25. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SETIGuy (talk • contribs) 17:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"When quoting a position, the time of the position at which the object has a given place is called the Epoch. The time of the coordinate grid itself is called the Equinox." [1]SETIGuy (talk) 17:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Responce

Did any one attempt to respond to the signal or debate doing so? Paramecium13 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of one. What's to respond to anyway, and where? The Wow! signal couldn't be located precisely and nobody's sure it even was a signal, let alone something that could be responded to. In the realm of radio signals of the kind looked for in SETI, I think it's generally accepted that there's no possibility of two-way communication. The distances are just too large. At best, we could receive something.AstroCog (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The encoding needs better explanation

I think the extra zeros there are confusing. Also do they use 0 to mean 10? And then wouldn't that make A mean 11 and not 10? Or do they only use 1 thru 9 to mean 1.0 to 9.0 and not 1.0 to 10.0 as it is currently stated in the article? --TiagoTiago (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure ??

I'm interested to know the process for this news getting to the general public. How and when was knowledge of this discovery disclosed ? You'd think it would have made a splash at the time but why then did it take until 1987 before someone else seriously tried searching for it ? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't a discovery. It was an anomalous, but interesting, observation. I suspect that at the time the "wow! signal" was detected, the astronomers working at Big Ear just didn't think it was worth making a huge fuss about. Attempts were made to relocate the signal, but were unsuccessful. I'd say the more amazing thing is that it even became a topic in pop culture at all. Of course, maybe the Men In Black were holding on to it until they confirmed it was nothing ;-) AstroCog (talk) 13:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What would the news be? "Astronomers detected some kind of blip in their equipment, but it didn't seem to be a message and they don't really know where it's from, or if it's anything at all. Really all we know is that unusually high levels of noise were detected." The signal is of rather limited interest to the general public. - Alltat (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Comparison with the A Message From Earth signal?

If the A Message From Earth signal signal was sent to a planet the same distance away and recorded with the same technology, how long would the signal last for? How powerful would the signal be compared with Wow? And, how would Wow compare to the signals we send to satellites, again across the same distance? Knowing this would be a good way to interpret how sufficient this signal is. Robo37 (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

german article

http://www.berliner-kurier.de/panorama/wow-signal-1977-erste-mail-ausserirdische-ufo,7169224,16497424.html James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Speculation on the signal's origin

The article mentions "the signal would have required a 2.2-gigawatt transmitter". How was this calculated? Is that the MINIMUM power necessary based on the closest star system located in that portion on the sky? Is that calculation considering a very narrow MASER technology, that would specifically be aimed at us? Or is it calculated based on what power would be necessary on earth using current technology in order to observed such a strong signal reflected off of some space debris or passive satellite? - Dhrm77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhrm77 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"SETI researcher Paul Shuch told New Scientist in 1997 that if the signal did come from an alien civilization, it would have required some amazingly advanced equipment. Assuming that the extraterrestrial beacon was the size of the biggest radio telescopes on Earth, the aliens would have required a 2.2 gigawatt transmitter, vastly more powerful than any existing terrestrial radio station."[2] BlackHades (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow.

Why are scientists disappointed that the signal was only received once, when we only sent one response ourselves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortoso (talk • contribs)

Humans have been submitting signals into space in all sorts of directions for decades and continues to do so.[3] BlackHades (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Random Rant

If "6EQUJ5" stood for 'beware' (for some oddball reason), how might the rest of the signal read as...?

"Random Rant" is correct. What possible evidence is there to translate 6EQUJ5 to "beware". Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Weasel Words

The line "Scientists say that if the signal came from extraterrestrials," is a textbook example of weasel words. Not only is there no citation mentioning who these aforementioned scientists are, but that whole "scientists say" line seems to be written in a completely different voice than the previous stanza, as if someone penned it it after the original content was added to the article. I tried tagging the article with weasel so that someone with more knowledge on the Wow! signal could see the tag and correct it, but the tag was just removed, and I received a message from David_J_Johnson telling me not to add a weasel tag again. Could someone who knows what they're doing please fix this?

Firstly, please sign your contributions. As previously stated, you should discuss your concerns and specified the offending line(s), which have references, with other registered editors on the Talk page first. Please also read "Speculations on signal origin" above. If other editors discuss and agree with your concerns, then I am happy to abide by any consensus. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 13:56, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Misidentified signals

I noticed that if you look in the Extraterrestrial life category on the bottom page, the article is in "Misidentified signals" sub-category. Can you please explain how this can be misidentified signal because there is no 100% verified explanation at all and never was, so how can the signal be misidentified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by F4wEX (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions before posting them. I do not understand your question, the entry in the Extraterrestrial life article on Wikipedia does not feature "Misidentified signals" and only gives a accurate mention of current Wow! signal knowledge? David J Johnson (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I also see the wow signal listed as misidentified in the Template:Extraterrestrial life as shown in the Wow! signal article. It doesn't look like a correctr categorization, as this is the only signal which is truly unexplainable, we just have no idea what it was, so we cannot claim that it was misidentified. Sofia Koutsouveli (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Query on Response[edit]In 2012, on the 35th anniversary of the Wow! signal, Arecibo Observatory beamed a response from humanity, containing 10,000 Twitter messages, in the direction from which the signal originated.[13][14] In the response, Arecibo scientists have attempted to increase the chances of intelligent life receiving and decoding the celebrity videos and crowd-sourced tweets by attaching a repeating sequence header to each message that will let the recipient know that the messages are intentional and from another intelligent life form. Did I read this right? Someone has sent Twitter messages into space and whatever out there is supposed to interpret this as intelligent life? 86.188.183.86 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)PJJ

Suggest you keep your POV edits to other sources on the internet and not on this Talk page, which should be for improving the article. David J Johnson (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Half-Vast Editing

Regarding the recent revert to my edit: I have never in my life heard "half-vast" as anything but an intentional pun, nor can I find any examples online which are not intentional puns. Perhaps then it's less worth mentioning(?), but suggesting it isn't a pun by default seems ludicrous to me. There's nothing "half-vast" could be but an intentional pun, because those words don't make sense together. I could source definitions for the pun online if a source is needed (there are many but I'd have to look to make it encyclopedic), but again: are there any editors who actually, honestly think this could not be a pun? TricksterWolf (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, you are still making this a "Point of View" edit without any source or reference. The quote is a accurate representation of Jerry's remark and he is not a person to engage in puns. Please remember that Wikipedia relies on confirmed sources and not speculation. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So?

The lede says "The signal bore the expected hallmarks of non-terrestrial and non-Solar System origin." It would be nice to know what those hallmarks are. Was it a complex signal repeated regularly? Did it show a mathematical progression? Did it translate into "all your base are belong to us?" What was special about this signal? Surely it must be more than the fact that it was on the 21-cm band.

What am I missing here?

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

References will answer your queries. David J Johnson (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you say so. I don't currently have a lot of time to update the article as it deserves, but I think this is information critical to the substance of the article. My question was more rhetorical than substantial; I was hoping someone would update the article. I guess I'll add it to my "List Of Things To Do Before I Die."

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

If it was a plain unmodulated signal I would guess it came from a physical source related to a hydrogenic or a quasar-like object. Since hydrogen is common in the universe, this observation may refer to a hitherto unknown phenomenon, like .e.g. a GRB of greater length. Ontologix (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Revisiting "half-vast"

Every reliable source I can find online using "half-vast" openly admits it as a pun on "half-assed". I tried adding a mention a while back but this was reverted by someone suggesting I was making assumptions, and I admit this might be understandable considering that if the pun is that obvious perhaps it need not be commented on. However, I think non-English-familiar visitors may be confused by "half-vast", so I am still inclined to push for an explanation. Does any native English speaker honestly think it is reasonable to believe this is not a pun? If not a pun, what on Earth could "half-vast" mean? It seems completely nonsensical to me outside of a punny context. TricksterWolf (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The conclusion?

If SETI actually did find what it was looking for, it might never recognise it, or understand it! -MacRùsgail (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain what you are suggesting be done with the article. Should we include context describing how a sapience-encoded message can be identified even when the source is completely foreign? A reference to Hofstadter's "Godel Escher Bach" might be useful if this idea is not clear. TricksterWolf (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Methinks that Mac is speculating.

I'd like to add a comment that the Arecibo message was sent only once. But that would be OR. Kortoso (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No stars in the region ?

In every article or forum on the net and media about this "wow signal" it is stressed that there was nothing (or no stellar objects) in the calculated probability area in direction from where it came from, however, on the image on this wiki page that gives two possible solutions represented as red ellipses, ..well, at least I see (that is if my eyes are still healthy at this age I hope..) ..umm, a tiny dot inside each ellipse!? Is it? On the bottom of one ellipse, and near the middle of the other.. So, what distant stellar objects are those two? I tried matching this wiki image to stellar map but could not define the objects position. If those dots are stars, have there been, with recent advances in technology, attempts to classify those stars for possibility of planetary system, ..any spectrometry data etc. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.182.80.250 (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the ellipses are wider than they would be if drawn to scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.211.93 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your contribution. Secondly, the caption to the diagram already states that the ellipses are not drawn to scale. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Question, the article does not say what time of day the signal was seen?

Being an old Space Track and Radar person with Sky 6 I would like to look at the side-lobe areas for satellites, asteroids and planets (like J) which would have less power required. Yes, I understand that the time of appearance may indicate it is not on a side lobe. Millerf1 (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)F. Miller

Good question. None of the sources seem to have that info, including this one which otherwise has lots of detailed data. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The signal was observed at 11:16:01 pm EDT August 15, 1977 [Source: The Big Ear Wow! Signal (30th Anniversary Report) By: Jerry R. Ehman, Ph.D. --Rbt_V 02:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular hypothesis not mentioned

There is a hypothesis that the signal is actually a high-pitched slowed-down human voice saying, "it's 7pm at double 10 61".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9XWMJ4tgts&t=5m45s

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1017475/pg1

Yegor Timoschenko (talk) 11:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Pure fantasy/speculation. Not worth mentioning. David J Johnson (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The "source" you gave us is a hoax. The Wow! signal was never recorded as an audio (vocal) radio sound... but on a printer; as amplitudes. If you would be listening to this sound it would rather sound as a tune, than some voice (many voices together). Or better said, if you would be listening to this "Wow!" then you would hear 6 beeps or clicks which would be 12 seconds apart increasing in total 72 seconds. Duration of this signal is actually unknown. This was the time as the antenna (recipient) was oriented towards the signal. The weaker amplitudes were probably also caused because of the rotation of the Earth itself... My opinion is that the signal(tune) was increasing during 72 seconds, like an alarm on some Extraterrestrial space ship...or it was not a "audio" signal at all...

Meaningless number

"the signal would have required a 2.2-gigawatt (2,200,000 kW) transmitter, vastly more powerful than any on Earth" 2.2-gigawatt at what distance? With what beam width? Including this number is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.185.137 (talk) 10:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, please sign your contribution. You obviously have not read the article correctly. The signals supposed origin is in Sagittarius area of the sky. Check the article before leaving "silly" unsigned comments. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the number is silly. "This region of the sky lies in the constellation Sagittarius, roughly 2.5 degrees south of the fifth-magnitude star group Chi Sagittarii, and about 3.5 degrees south of the plane of the ecliptic." That establishes direction, not distance. The signal could have come from a much weaker transmitter within our solar system, for example.

Unfortunately, the original article actually does say it, so however silly this may be, it's validly cited, which is the Wikipedia standard.

I'll have to see if I can get a better citation.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's a little better. The National Geographic article still doesn't say how they decided on the location, but at least it gives a distance.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

That National Geographic article is still a very weak reference. M55 is many degrees away, far far outside the error ellipses, as I see it. The article does not actually give a distance that I see, unless you mean that the vague reference to it not being where M55, combined with some other source of information on how far M55, and those two are somehow misleadingly combined. Finding the New Scientist article would help, but I see nothing at [4]. This is not a good effort from National Geographic.... ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't give details on how far away M55 is, but it at least gives something from which to work. The original wording of the Wikipedia article was, as one editor put it, "silly." I'm glad to see someone knowledgeable is looking at this; I wouldn't have any idea whether M55 was in the middle of the error ellipses or on the other side of the sky, frankly. Thanks, Nealmcb.

Like science, Wikipedia will gradually zero in on the right answer {grin}. Meanwhile, I'll add the link to the Wikipedia article on M55.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone work out the terrestrial azimuth and elevation of the horn antenna during the WOW event? For example, if the horn were directed toward a major city like Chicago or NYC, the signal could be 3rd harmonic of a T band (473 MHz) land mobile repeater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.71.152 (talk) 03:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC) RhyoliteAquacade (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it well after 1977 that mobile phone towers came into general use in the USA? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 04:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor JoeE is absolutely correct in his reply. The anon IP would do well to read Jerry's articles about the signal, before leaving unsigned, silly, comments. David J Johnson (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Doctor JoeE missed the point. T-band 473 MHz was used for two-way mobile relay (repeaters) for police radios, taxi cabs and such. This technology existed long before "mobile phone towers" and these Motorola repeaters were mounted high above terrain on skyscrapers. Power levels of +50 dBm were available to an antenna. Although a harmonic filter was utilized, the vacuum tube technology was pretty rough circa 1977. Antenna related passive intermodulation was a problem back then, a harmonic generated by antenna hardware could radiate. Nothing silly about it. If the antennas were pointed at a major population center, tropospheric ducting can do the rest. This could be ruled out by knowing the terrestrial LAT LON coordinates the antenna horn was directed as well as Elevation during the WOW. This is why I ask. Also I have reread Jerrys article and a reason he discounted 473 MHz was that TV used that band and TV has wide bandwidth larger than 10KHz observed. This is true but the LMR operations that use that band in some population areas use modulation occupying a 10 KHz BW. NTSC TV cannot be entirely ruled out because analog TV energy dispersion is a result of the program material, energy could have been concentrated at a specific frequency due to a test pattern or a fixed image. new user RhyoliteAquacade (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I did preface my replay with, "Correct me if I'm wrong", so thanks for the correction. I'm not sure which of Ehman's articles you're referring to, but in this one (source #10 in the article), he enumerates other reasons why ground-based transmitters are an unlikely explanation. Note that he does not rule it out entirely; he just considers it a "low probability". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 03:48, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DoctorJoeE, Sorry, I really should have directed my ire toward David J Johnson for being so dismissive to my original "silly" post. Anyway, yes that is the article I read. What I don't find is any kind of scholarly report ruling out the possibility of either a channel 14 TV or 473.3 MHz T-Band land mobile radio emitter, the LMR would have the <10 KHz BW characteristic. I have been in the LMR radio game since 1976 and having dealt with sporadic interference sources, am surprised by very little. Where I would start is determining how the antenna was pointed during the WOW with respect to any potential terrestrial sources. I can't find anything to document the terrestrial azimuth or elevation. Knowing the beamwidth and sidelobes would also be helpful. You cannot discount the potential for leakage through the reflector either. A difficulty will be in identifying a specific LMR transmitter, because FCC database does not extend back that far. However some assumptions can be made. So my expectation is that all of this work has been done by others, if not why not, and if why not, why not me? RhyoliteAquacade (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I don't know nearly as much about the technical setup as Ehman, who, after all, was there. But my assumption is that when they set up the apparatus, they did everything they could think of to eliminate potential interference from terrestrial sources. Still, Ehman does concede that the possibility is there. It's a long shot, but hey, go for it! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 21:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

More on 2.2 Gigawatts

I've deleted this claim - see diff [5]. I actually downloaded and read the article (Billingham and Tarter, Acta Astronoutica, 1992), it doesn't say anything in support of the claim made in our article. The 1992 article is actually about the possibility of detecting Earth from outside the solar system, and says nothing about the Wow! signal. See discussion at ref desk here [6]. It will be archived in a week or so and that link will rot, but you will be able to find it in the archives by searching my username and 'wow! signal' The further claims and cites about powers of transmitters seemed fine, but they would have just been dangling there and not make any sense without the weird 2.2 GW claim for comparison, so I deleted those as well. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@SemanticMantis: Thanks. I was wrong on my side. But my concern is that is it anything good about saying that thing here. We are not having an article on the potential problems of sending beam to it. Its all about the signal itself. We have a pretty good coverage on the response to it and IMO, the beam and the comparisons are all superfluous. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I think he might have been pulling the number out of his butt. That would vary according to the distance the signal was received, and we have no idea how far away the signal emanated. Kortoso (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Wow! signal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 18:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I should get this done by tomorrow JAGUAR 18:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Initial comments

"Amazed at how closely the signal" - informal, try "impressed"?
I would recommend expanding the lead slightly (a line or two maybe) in order to summarise, and also splitting in the lead into two paragraphs would be great
"when the 37-year old Ehman spotted a surprising vertical column" - is it necessary to include his age in this sentence? Seems like it was extracted from somewhere
"The circled alphanumeric code 6EQUJ5" - per WP:BOLD it isn't required to embolden anything other than the lead title. This would be better in quotes
The first half of the Time variation section is unreferenced
I would recommend merging some of the smaller paragraphs in the Searches for recurrence of the signal section to improve prose flow
The See also section is a bit long, I think maybe cutting down a couple of links would suffice (there is a guideline on too many external links somewhere, but I can't remember it!)

References

Ref 12 is dead

On hold

This is mostly a well written and broad article, with a few tweaks it could meet the GA criteria. I remember reading the Wow! signal years ago, it is so interesting. If all of the above can be addressed then it should pass JAGUAR 12:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I'd say its a

Done. Expanded the lead and made some tweaks, merged and removed the dead cite to replace with afar better one. Thanks again for the quick review. -The Herald (Benison) • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 17:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing them! Looks good now

JAGUAR 18:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

A star designation on the diagram may be wrong?

According to the highly respected very deep sky atlas Uranometria 2000, Volume II, the star that is labelled Chi 3 on the diagram here, is labelled as 49-Chi 2 in Uranometria. The Uranometria nomenclature would appear to be more consistend, with Chi 3 then actually being the fainter star close to Chi 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.128.196 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Position description a little inaccurate.

This article has the signal location "about 3.5 degrees south of the plane of the ecliptic". Again according to Uranometria 2000, the actual location is more like 5 degrees south. Also, whilst Tau Sgr is indeed the "nearest easily visible star", it's not that close - about 4 degrees away. Next the signal is also more than 5 degrees away from M55, so that would appear to have no relevance. Finally, and very speculatively, the signal is about 4 degrees away from the border of Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy containing M54, but that border is not very well defined, so it could be a lot closer or even actually within/against it. After all, Terzan 7 is believed to be a part of that galaxy, and it is more than 4 degrees away.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.128.196 (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Opposite sky sector

I wonder, what lies in the sector of the sky strictly opposite to the signal location? Did anyone ever pointed a radiotelescope to that part of the sky? I suppose if the signal was received as a result of a casual evesdropping on ET's spaceprobe narrow beamed communication with mother star, that should be in opposite direction from us. -- A man without a country (talk) 07:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Loudness of signal

As I was reading the interpretation of the paper chart section, I noticed this reference to the loudness of the Wow signal: "on a linear scale it was over 30 times louder than normal deep space". Since sound doesn't travel through a vacuum and the SETI telescope measures radio signals, should this be reworded?

Perhaps "louder" may be changed for simply "higher". Yet, it seems not be uncommon to speak of radio signal "loudness", e.g. it is used also here: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/arcade_balloon.html.

P.S. Please put four "~" signs after your messages, or just press third button (from the left) in the toolbar in order to left signature and message timestamp. -- A man without a country (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Verbiage Edit Warring

I want to express my support for this version:

 Line 2:
 The Wow! signal is a name given to a strong narrowband radio frequency|radio signal...

and

 Line 14:
 The original printout of the Wow! signal, complete with Jerry Ehman's exclamation...

I can understand the preference for "famous," but it's really just as good without it.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 17:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Try giving reasons for your preferences; otherwise, they are meaningless. The first is pointlessly verbose: if A is the name given to B, then A is B. As for the second, WP:PEACOCK explains why it's not "just as good" without it, but better. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not consider the first "pointlessly verbose;" the appellation is not inherent in the signal. You wouldn't say "the 21-centimeter band is the name given to electromagnetic radiation in the 21-centimeter range," because that would be "pointlessly verbose." However, "Wow! signal" is a colloquial appellation, and it could certainly be given other, more precise or scientific descriptive names.

As for the second, I'm trying to agree with you. Arguing with someone's agreement is not the way to build friendly consensus or collegiality. The exclamation is somewhat famous within the community of people who follow such things, so a case can be made for leaving it in, but I consider it equally good without it, and definitely better in the sense that the adjective is not necessary. The article is a tiny bit tidier without it, but not enough to be worth all this edit warring.

Incidentally, if you intend to be a regular editor on Wikipedia, you are encouraged to create an account, which confers several benefits, including a custom signature which you can insert by entering four tildes (~~~~)

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't have any other more precise or scientific descriptive names; it just has that name. See also The Rumble in the Jungle, The Day the Music Died and Bloop for examples where a nickname is used without this verbose formulation; it's just not necessary.

I'm glad you agree with me on something; other people are simply insulting me and being disruptive, which does not seem likely to build or encourage collegiality, indeed. As for "famous", everything is "famous" to someone, so you could either make a case for describing everything as famous -- the famous Big Ear radio telescope at the famous Ohio State University -- or you could make a case for not using the word. The latter is done at WP:PEACOCK. So, all I am saying is that I disagree with you that it would be equally good with it in. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring

No-one has yet bothered to explain why they are reverting my changes. Instead, they have just made personal attacks and claimed a "consensus", which, given the previously empty talk page, was clearly specious. If someone has a reason, then please state it. And for the fans of BRD, you seem to have failed to read the bit that says "When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed". 193.60.234.210 (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

At least five other editors have disagreed that your chosen wording is preferable. Only you seem to feel it is an improvement. I do believe that 83.33% is a clear indication of a consensus among contributing editors. Do not edit war, even if you believe you are right. Scr★pIron^IV 17:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you had a reason, you'd be able to state it clearly, wouldn't you? If no-one can state their reason, that's not much of a consensus, is it? 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, it looks like you lost count somewhere around three. Get an adult to help you if the big numbers are confusing. Yes, I'm insulting you; advice from User:Dennis Brown is that you should let it roll off you, like water from a duck's back. Think of the duck, my friend, think of the duck. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't insult me. You aren't important enough to me. As we have had Dennis Brown, Smalljim, David Johnson, Septegram, and me all commenting on the topic and disagreeing with your edit, I would call that a consensus. And yes, that does make five. The proper way to count is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... I think you missed a couple of digits when you tried it. But don't worry, I have confidence in you that you can learn eventually. Scr★pIron^IV 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

To clarify – are we just discussing whether the first sentence should read "The Wow! signal was a strong..." or "The Wow! signal is the name given to a strong..."? —SMALL JIM 18:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No, we are discussing how no-one bothered to explain why they were undoing my edits. You at least left a summary, but "I like it better" was not a reason. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. I'll put the article back to the preferred version, and you can deal with your problems in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. —SMALL JIM 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you'll just ignore the discussion, and not bother to think of an actual reason for reverting? How astonishingly childish. 193.60.234.210 (talk) 18:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Calling names, regardless of what you think of a person's actions, is a direct violation of WP:CIVIL. Kindly knock it off. Others have attempted to be civil with you, where you have been abrupt, abrasive, and now abusive.

The correct response, per WP:BRD would have been to come to the talk page after the first reversion of your edits. You are not helping your cause with this incessant edit warring and now calling people names.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 20:58, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It's time for me to back out, per WP:YMFTT. I won't block since I could now be considered to be involved. If anyone wants to report at AIV, please do. —SMALL JIM 18:34, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see the back of you, then, if all you can contribute to the discussion is a desperately childish threat, and pathetically immature accusations of vandalism. You need to have a look at WP:VAN and WP:NOTVAND. 193.60.234.209 (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Opening line

I notice there was a rather acrimonious discussion about the wording of the first sentence, not long ago, which I haven't read in full. However, the resulting wording "The Wow! signal is the name given to a strong narrowband radio signal" doesn't work very well: 'Wow!' is the name; 'the Wow! signal' is the signal, as clearly pointed out in WP:REFERS. The fact is that the article's title doesn't fit very well in the opening sentence, so better to do away with it altogether, as suggested by WP:BOLDTITLE, and put in bold the first occurrence of 'Wow!' instead, which now also appears earlier in the paragraph. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Definitive Article

I'm going to be good and follow WP:BRD

I really wanted to just undo this edit, but it's already a revert. So...

One does not customarily say "I'm going to the Ohio State University" (although one might say "I'm going to the University of Ohio"); one says "I'm going to Ohio State University." Adding the definitive article before the name sounds awkward. I fully agree with 2602:306:c4da:4b50:c9ba:b087:1fb5:7020 's original edit.

Respectfully,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

How about now? It didn't sound particularly awkward to me, with the definite article, but I don't claim to be up to date with its usage. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that looks fine.

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 14:33, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Skeptoid linkage

Rp2006, I've noticed the significant amount of text and quoted material under a single reference from Skeptoid.com that has been added ¹. What caught my eye was the podcast nature of the reference and, checking with the RSN, the topic of using Skeptoid has come up before. I think that, due to the evaluative properties of the material being used here, we have to weigh the reliability of a podcast with how much weight we are going to give it it here in this article. I would suggest that we trim the quote so that it presents an opinion as opposed to an evaluation. In the alternative, we could remove the material in its entirety, as I don't think that Skeptoid can be used to the extent that it has here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Whilst some of the Skeptoid material is interesting and informative, it is nonetheless an opinion. I agree with Jack Sebastian that the quote be trimmed or dropped. I fear we are entering WP:POV and WP:FRINGE, if the material is left as recently edited. David J Johnson (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I was about to write something similar. That podcast is no more authoritative than other cited sources, so it does not deserve that much space (and is already referenced twice in the article, anyway). I don't think it's a case of fringe theories, just undue weight. --Deeday-UK (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi... I did not notice the previous reference (7) as it was not explicit - It is now combined with mine. But I do not see a third one! Regarding trimming it "so that it presents an opinion as opposed to an evaluation." To me it seemed to already be clearly stated as an opinion, but I changed it slightly. Does that work? RobP (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've cut the paragraph down to what seems to me appropriate to the source's weight. If a literal quotation was appropriate, that would probably be Ehman's. Indeed, he is already quoted in the preceding paragraph, and even there he is quoted to a much smaller degree than the proposed block quote from Dunning, which adds too little information for the space and prominence that it takes. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a good compromise. Thanks! RobP (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks DeedayUK, I'm quite happy with your edits. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Followup on Paris & Davies?

According to the section "Hypotheses on the signal's origin," two people proposed that the signal came from comets, and they'd be verifying this on Jan. 7, 2017. That was over a week ago now. Has anyone tried to follow up on how that went? I can't seem to find anything. Fredo699 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If you read the next paragraph, from that you have edited, you will see that Jerry Ehman has stated that Paris and Davies theory is highly unlikely. I personally doubt we shall hear more, but time will tell. Incidentally, I totally agree with Jerry's comment. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It just seems to me that we should try to figure out if it was actually examined on the date they mention, and update the article accordingly. Fredo699 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed explanation

A new paper investigates the Wow! signal: http://planetary-science.org/research/the-wow-signal/ SV1XV (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This explanation is very likely to be nonsense. The "scientist" at the heart of it published his paper in a journal with no reputation. The author has extremely questionable credentials. And real radio astronomers are voicing their doubt about it all. Dziban303⁓talk 04:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dziban303: can you please add some links to sources critical of those results? That would be interesting to read. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Astronomy/comments/6ganha/no_the_wow_signal_was_probably_not_caused_by/ and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14520969 2600:8800:1280:E00:202B:6DEB:6C58:9C05 (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A quick comment, as my life is very busy at the moment. I believe that there is far too much reliance on on this comet theory, which with the history of the "scientist", is no more than a WP:FRINGE issue with WP:UNDUE elements. I further note that Jerry Ehman has rejected this "theory", although I have note the time to source/reference Jerry's comment. This whole section needs re-editing and cut-back. In haste and regards to all. David J Johnson (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

We could roll it back to April, 22 revision, with further tweaks to reflect the weight of Paris' theory. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Deeday-UK:, I support that idea. Unfortunately, as with @David J Johnson:, I'm not really in a position to do a thorough edit; I'm doing field work for the next ten days. Dziban303⁓talk 20:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added to the latest edit, that the comet theory has not been accepted by any reliable source. Once again, we have to be careful regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. In haste, David, David J Johnson (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like this comet theory is really a load of bollocks. This the rebuttal of Paris's theory published by the NAAPO, the organisation that ran the Big Ear telescope in its latter years. Essentially, the two comets in question were too far off the location of the Wow! signal to be detectable by the telescope. Also, apparently hydrogen line signals have never been observed from comets, which would make for extremely weak sources of it, orders of magnitude weaker than Wow! There's more criticism from last year on New Scientist. I think we should keep the 'Cometary emissions' header until the story dies down, but the whole theory does not deserve more than a short paragraph. --Deeday-UK (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I say yank the comet references until there are better facts, or some kind of peer review that gives it credibility. It didn't take long to find plenty of opinions calling this utter nonsense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree with the comments made by Deeday-UK and Dennis Brown, as I have previously stated - this is WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. My view is that this comet "theory" should be yanked, unless there are more reliable sources - this action would have my total support. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, with all the media exposure that the comet theory has enjoyed, this article ought to at least mention it. Readers who come here after hearing about that theory will expect to find something about it, in the article, otherwise they'll think the article is out of date (and possibly add info to the article themselves). I'm thinking of a couple of lines or so at the end of the current 'Hypotheses' section. --Deeday-UK (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Deeday-UK is correct. There should be a small mention of this theory, but with qualification that it is not accepted by mainstream sources. David J Johnson (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Comet section removed and stored here for now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Cometary emissions

In a 2016 paper, Antonio Paris and Evan Davies proposed that the diffuse head of a comet could produce H I emission, and identified a pair of comets that were in the same area of the sky at the same time as the Wow! signal: 266P/Christensen and 335P/Gibbs. The paper acknowledges that the comet-as-an-emission-source hypothesis has not been empirically tested, and that a potentially long-lived emission source does not explain why only one of the feed horns detected the Wow! signal.^[1]^[2]

Ehman's analysis of the Paris and Davies paper indicates that it is highly unlikely that either of the two comets could have been the cause/source of the Wow! signal. Ehman's colleagues at the Ohio State University Radio Observatory agree with his analysis and conclusions.^{[citation needed]}

In 2017, an experiment was performed to test this hypothesis. A 10-meter radio telescope was used to confirm a radio emission from 266/P Christensen, and it was found to emit a radio signal at a wavelength of 1420.25 MHz. Turning the 10-meter radio dish a degree away from the comet resulted in the loss of the signal. It was re-acquired by turning the dish back toward the comet. After confirming similar emission from three other comets, the researchers concluded that the 1977 "Wow!" signal was "a natural phenomenon from a Solar System body".^[3] This conclusion has not been accepted, to date, by any other mainstream source.

^ Paris, Antonio. "Hydrogen Clouds from Comets 266/P Christensen and P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs) are Candidates for the Source of the 1977 "WOW" Signal". Retrieved 2016-07-02.
^ "Alien ‘Wow!’ signal could be explained after almost 40 years", Stuart Clark. The Guardian. April 14, 2016. Retrieved 8 jan 2017
^ "The "Wow!" Signal", Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103 (2), The Center for Planetary Science, Summer 2017, retrieved 2017-06-11.

In Popular Culture

The WOW signal was mentioned in the book 172 hours on the moon by Johan Harstad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelockedoctor (talk • contribs)

Is the reference in the superbowl commercial notable? I think so, since if you look at various conspiracy theory web sites (for entertainment value only), you find people who had no knowledge of the "Wow! signal", were puzzled by the inscription, and led to the signal by searching for the string. So it had visible consequences, leading to more folks knowing about the topic. So I believe it notable by Wikipedia standards. LouScheffer (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Solved

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-wow-mystery-space.html

Don't just delete this without discussion thanks very much. Don't delete it at all. ~ R.T.G 12:19, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

For instance, if it's been debunked ... sources ... I can't find what you are talking about debunked User:David J Johnson, ~ R.T.G 12:23, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Try: naapo.org/WOWCommentRebuttal.html. Apologies for delay in reference, I was busy and about to go out. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 12:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The article already covers Antonio Paris's comet theory mentioned on Phys.org, and also its related criticism, all with references. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The article desperately needs to be updated with the current knowledge, Example: https://futurism.com/the-40-year-old-mystery-of-the-wow-signal-was-just-solved/ Seems it was suggested before. I'll see if I can make an objective edit but if it's reverted I won't fight for it. **shrug**. Isptech151 (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

@Isptech151: have you read the section 'Hypotheses on the signal's origin'? It already mentions Paris's theory, which you seem to refer to with your link, and that theory has been given due weight as considered appropriate by other editors of this article, including myself. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wow! signal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170615182709/http://planetary-science.org/hydrogen-clouds-from-comets-266p-christensen-and-p2008-y2-gibbs-are-candidates-for-the-source-of-the-1977-wow-signal/ to http://planetary-science.org/hydrogen-clouds-from-comets-266p-christensen-and-p2008-y2-gibbs-are-candidates-for-the-source-of-the-1977-wow-signal/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Wow! signal response

Sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Rowan Forest , I recently noticed you declared one of my edits as sock puppetry. Not sure why, since I have nothing to do with the sources I provided. I found out in a video that the Wow! reply wasn't sent 'toward the area of the signal's origin', as it is mentioned in the article. The Wow! signal allegedly came from the Southern hemisphere, but the Wow! reply was sent from the Northern Hemisphere because the Arecibo Observatory (which sent the reply) is located there. That is a completely different location. I checked that info in another source and it was indeed true. Both sources, despite being a blog and a youtube video, look reliable to me because they belong to academics. In any case, I added a 'better source needed'. If any of you find a better one, please update it. Cheers.

The user named Planethunter91, Alfa0151991, Johnford65, Wikicontributor911, all their multiple sock-puppet accounts ([7]) also said their promotional links "belong to academics". Sock-puppet and continued block evasion was again reported. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This has to be a mistake. I have never edited under any of those accounts. I actually edit without account as I don't consider it necessary. I assume this is a missunderstanding, but just in case, I would appreciate if you could provide here proof of that. Also, the subject of the discussion I opened is about correcting or not an error in the article, not about possible conflicts that other users might have had with the sources I provided. The article right now is wrong, that's why I propose to edit it. If you don't like the sources, I'm more than open to hear alternatives. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.20.191.228 (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with 88.20.191.228. The Wow! reply wasn't sent to the Southern hemisphere, but to the Northern one. With respect to the sources the user provides, I also think they are reliable. The first one looks smelly because it is a blog, but I found the National Geographic interview related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpE8gdp_Y0 Regards.

Please sign any "contribution" you may make in the usual way. David J Johnson (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

No The above mentioned IP has already been blocked as a sockpuppet by an administrator and the so-called "interview" is only seconds long - that is not a WP:RS and nor is anything on youtube. No-one has mentioned that the Wow! signal was received in Ohio, Northern hemisphere and would scientists really send a "reply" to the wrong hemisphere? Also I have to state that 88.20.191.228 excuses for not creating an account are highly suspect and someone who cannot even sign their "posts". Why not have an account, then editors have some idea who they are dealing with? David J Johnson (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Comet theory

@210.55.232.218, I'm glad you agree that the comet theory should be mentioned. However, your last edit removed most of the debunking explanation, which defeats your own point about due weight (i.e. the original version was in fact giving more weight to the debunking, rather than to the theory). I see that we currently reference three sources from Paris, where one would probably be plenty, or none at all, as you suggest with regard to using secondary sources instead, but I wouldn't rush to delete or revert; plus, I'm quite busy now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Referring to your preferred version as the "last good version" is both arrogant and insulting.

This nonsensical "theory" does not need extensive debunking. It just needs to be identifed as nonsense. WP: DUE, WP:FRINGE
Primary sources do not need citing; there are secondary sources. WP:RS, WP:WPNOTRS
The person is not notable and does not need to be referred to by name.

Say that someone made a nonsensical claim, if absolutely necessary; cite a source. Say that it was nonsense; cite a source. Job done, no need for anything else. If you disagree, next time do so without insulting me. 210.55.232.218 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Uncited notes regarding signal modulation

I've reversed the recent addition by Deeday-UK, where a note is added. While the adding contributor might be well-versed in this field, we have to remain committed to citing proof for any substantial statements made within the article. We cannot add our own expertise, insight or special knowledge to the article, except as perhaps a 'bs detector.' Should the contributor (or anyone else) find a source that explicitly imparts the info with reference to the Wow signal, then we're great. Until then, it cannot remain in the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, all they did was take information and its cite that was there and move it into a note. But the content they restored along with doing so has problems:

"A common misconception" - not too keen on the 'myth vs. fact' style. The meaning of the printout string is discussed in the previous paragraph and I disagree with their edit summary that the idea needs to be specifically debunked. The source #1 they point to as containing it seems likely to just mean that the mystery is the signal itself, like all other sources say, not the printout. But in any case this phrase can be moved to the previous paragraph which is about the meaning of the string.
"constitutes some sort of message" - calling this a misconception is POV and OR. The source says "The letters and numbers in the printout are today widely misinterpreted as a message" and "the "Wow!" sequence itself is not a message", not the Wow! signal specifically.
"with no encoded information; essentially a flash of radio energy." - not in source, so OR, and POV.
"The string "6EQUJ5" is..." - this sentence is completely redundant to the preceding paragraph and should be cut.
The sentence about detectable modulation periods - I did add this recently, [8] but it is WP:DUE to include and I see no reason to bury it in a footnote. Sources either do not discuss modulation or state that none was found, but many were undetectable. Sources do not say there was no modulation and leave it at that; for us to state so is POV. Another source that discusses this is p. 59 of this book, edited by H. Paul Shuch, and with that chapter written by Ehman himself. (Note however that he here states less than 10 seconds and more than 72 seconds; perhaps this much more recent figure should be used).

Sources on this topic are unanimous as far as I can tell that the origin of this signal is a mystery and that the hypothesis it came from intelligent extraterrestrials cannot be ruled out. This paragraph was previously POV in this regard. For these reasons, I believe Deeday-UK's version should not be restored. -Crossroads- (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Should suffice to state and cite that there was "no detected modulation" which suggests no information. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I actually wrote that paragraph in the first place, years ago, with the idea of clarifying that 6EQUJ5 was not a message encoded in the signal, but I broadly agree with user Crossroads that the result is not very neutral. However:

I still think that the article should state very clearly, in layman terms, that the string 6EQUJ5 is not a message. Describing it solely in terms of unitless signal-to-noise ratio won't help much the uninitiated reader clear up the ambiguity.
I disagree with the interpretation of source 1. To me, that piece has clearly been written by someone who thinks that '6EQUJ5' is an encrypted message. They even ask "What is the meaning of "6EQUJ5" ? Everyone is welcome to develop their own theory!" – an example of why point 1) above is important.
Professor Brian Cox once described the Wow signal as a flash, in a BBC documentary (not specifically about the signal) a while ago. I would have to dig it out somewhere, but the point is largely immaterial now.

--Deeday-UK (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

This is somewhat a unanswerable problem. I have to say though that Deeday-UK does have a valid point in his para's 1 and 2. It is so easy for those of us interested in the Wow! signal to concentrate on the scientific explanation(s), that we tend to forget that moderately interested folk reading the present article might very well think that "6EQUJ5" is an encoded signal. We have to state clearly that this is not the case. In haste and regards to all, David, David J Johnson (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest edit looks good. I was wrong about source 1; I must have overlooked that bit below the picture thinking it was a credit line or something. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

"Unmodulated" is the correct technical word, but we need to explicitly state what it means: it was not coded, no message carried with it. Rowan Forest (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

We could rather say that modulation is a technique used to transmit information over radio signals, and none was detected. Maybe some information was encoded, in a way we might not even know about. --Deeday-UK (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Time_bin?

The text now states that the signal strength was measured every 12 seconds. This seems implausible, one would expect time bins of 12 seconds in which the intensity was accumulated, in the same way apparently intensity bins are used. This is corroborated by the straightforward histogram on Science-frontiers.com, if we can trust that graph, why not. Hansmuller (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Primordial black hole?

https://www.technology.org/2020/05/25/maybe-a-fleet-of-tiny-spacecraft-could-help-detect-a-primordial-black-hole-planet-9/

https://phys.org/news/2020-08-planet-primordial-black-hole.html

I wonder if this could be responsible in part for the "Wow!" signal in 1977, to wit one of our own signals reflected back or more interestingly a weaker alien signal gravitationally lensed to above our detection threshold.

Interestingly RATAN-600 may have provided further evidence to support the hypothesis, in terms of the mysterious signal at around 11.025 GHz later attributed to inadvertent detection of the downlink signal from a classified satellite. 11.025 GHz is coincidentally in a relatively unused part of the spectrum corresponding to the interchange between high and low bands on a satellite LNB so it is feasible that an alien civilization in range could choose this frequency anticipating advances in technology and possible detection of our radio and TV emissions though not the data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RATAN-600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.195.136 (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

[1] Paris, Antonio. "Hydrogen Clouds from Comets 266/P Christensen and P/2008 Y2 (Gibbs) are Candidates for the Source of the 1977 "WOW" Signal". Retrieved 2016-07-02.

[2] "Alien ‘Wow!’ signal could be explained after almost 40 years", Stuart Clark. The Guardian. April 14, 2016. Retrieved 8 jan 2017

[3] "The "Wow!" Signal", Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 103 (2), The Center for Planetary Science, Summer 2017, retrieved 2017-06-11.

[1]

[2]

[3]