Talk:Arecibo message/Archive 1

Old discussion
1679 is not prime. The article says it has factors of 23 and 73. --Peacenik 11:29, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the explanation of the binary numbers requires more, uh, explanation. I understand binary, but I'm not understanding this encoding. Good job I'm not an alien. Metamatic 00:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glad I'm not the only one!.. I can't make head nor tail of the binary numbers here, and it's not because I don't understand binary. The most sensible way of reading it would seem to me to be left-to-right, top-to-bottom, each number being a vertical strip of four pixels (white=1 black-0), and having a vertical strip of black seperating them for clarity... This way obviously doesn't work for a start, as there are white pixels on odd numbered columns... and attempting to read it in any method like what I've described gives nonsense. I don't see why it's written in such an unintuitive manner, as there's plenty of space there to count as far as 12 in binary using the method I've described. On the other hand, given that it was put together by the likes of Frank Drake and Carl Sagan, maybe I'm not not smart enough to get it. Anyone care to explain? Noodhoog 08:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update! Found a good explanation of how to read it.. seems rather more convoluted to me than necessary, but what do I know of these things? I'm adding the info to the article Noodhoog 08:07, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately the explanation of the numbering does not fit with the picture. Some dots are black even they should be white and vice versa. Maybe the picture of the message is not correct reproduced here. At least, the picture is different from that an the SETI homepage. Furthermore that picture of the SETI Homepage, fits to the explanation of the numbers on Wikipedia. Stefan_da

As noted by the above, the graphic should be changed. The picture is indeed wrong, as every version of the graphic that I've seen in print has those digits differently from the present graphic. In particular 4, 5 and 7 are wrong (but not 6, oddly). A similar review should be had for the other segments of the message, and the full message ought to be displayed 'upright', since the horizontal arrangement is decried as 'jumbled nonsense' right in the opening paragraph. -Cory

Again: I am disputing this page because upon further review, it's rather a mess. I suspect someone made the 230x730 png by hand to correspond to the messsage; first of all, 4,5 and 7 are wrong, as I said. Secondly, the last section which represents the telescope diameter is plain wrong: a string of 'ones' should be moved 'down' into the final row. I'm also shaky on the representation of Thymine and Guanine. This is an interesting topic, but it seems difficult to discover a proper 'basis' for the message with my limited means. An overhaul of the page should include the following things: a bit string of the 1679 bits, and an image of the message, at least vertically oriented. whether 'right-to-left' (as it is usually written) or 'left to right' doesn't really matter, but because the message is a sequence in time, we should also clarify WHERE the message starts and how to READ it. this orientation should be consistent throughout the breakdown of the message in the page. Someone should use at least two reputable print sources for the message; a lot of psuedoscience crops up around this topic, and frankly, many of the images not in print seem to contradict each other. Finally, a discussion may be warranted for errors in the extant message. -Cory

It appears that 4 is completely wrong, and 5 has been transposed with 7. -L

It's obvious, looking at the actual image from the SETI homepage, that the image in this article was partially mirrored, leaving the numbers section with an incorrect image. Why doesn't someone change it? --131.215.159.4 23:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The image was not correct indeed, so I've changed it. I also changed the binary numbers image and modified the text accordingly, but the other images should be also changed. Volunteers? --jbc 15:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I found by my own means how are the binary numbers displayed:

1) all are "underlined" by a pixel. It's better seen at the 1-10 sequence.

2) some numbers are horizontal (in both ways), others vertical.

3) when a number is too long, it's wrapped at their right or up/down.

It's easy to decode this numbers if you are human and has strong computer experience. This numbering representation, anyway, is odd and complicate (for almost every human and most aliens, i think). A better disposition, more uniform, is easy to make. A pity, yes. - voet cranf.

Number Explaination: The numbers are not in binary format. They are in binary coded octal. The major indicator is that 8 is shown as 10. 10 in every number base equals the number base. So, 10 in base 2 is 2, and 10 in base 10 = 10, and 10 in base 8 = 8. To show 9 as a binary coded octal value, the 9 is represented by 11, (1*8 + 1), and the 11 is what is shown in binary. The value 10, is represented by 12, (1*8 + 2), and the 12 is shown in binary format. That is consistent with what is shown in the picture. Of course, if the numbers were staight binary representation then 10 would be shown as 1010 and 9 would be 1001. The fact that the numbers are in octal and not hex is what I find so fascinating. I really didn't realize how popular octal was in the 70's or how much influence the computers at that time had in number representation. Then again, it could have been that there was only a limited amount of space available to represent the numbers and octal does take up less room than hex in the context of the message. --Bry703 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should addthe above explanation in the article. But in the blob below, the one giving the five atoms in DNA, two digits are not represented the same way as in the digits on top. There are other instances where this numbering system seems inconsistent. (I wonder what the aliens will think of us when they get this message...) - Redmess 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

wavelength times number
How shall aliens figure out they're supposed to multiply the given number next to the human with the wavelength of the radio message to get the height of a average human? --Abdull 23:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that's the thing, you don't have a lot of room to explain these sort of things, and even if you did there's no way to really explain a unit of length when you're starting out from absolutely nothing. So the assumption is that a sufficiently advanced species would understand this quandry too, and realize that the wavelength of the message is a convenient unit of length that can be inferred from the message.  In the case of the height of the man, it's clear that the blue line next to him is meant to be a ruler, since it's the same length as the red stick figure.  THe number in the middle of the blue line clearly has something to do with its length and therefore the height of the human-figure.  It's a stretch to infer that you're supposed to multiply that number by the wavelength, granted.  But you have to make other assumptions when making these messages, one of them is that the recipient will analyse it thoroughly and fully.  (Think how much effort would go into analysing such a message here on earth if we found one.)  So you have the components needed to express the intention of height: a pictoral figure, a ruler, a number implying a measurement.  YOu just have to connect the idea that this number is based on some relative length unit, which can be anything.  Using the wavelength of the signal puts the length in the right ballpart, so it's not unreasonable to hope that an intelligent species would eventually figure that out. Rhomboid 04:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mirror Image Fix
I fixed all the images. Hoo-rah! It was fun. Thanks for the wonderful time. So uh, what else do we need to fix now? The original image is from Cornell, so that should be fine. --StargateX1 11:07 PM, 2 Aug 2005 (PST)


 * Thanks StargateX, now it looks much better! -- jbc 10:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The series of numbers in binary format now appears to be decreasing from 10 to 1 instead of increasing from 1 to 10 as it should be. That is why I do not think that the images were wrong. Put the images back as they used to be, please! --Staseman 21:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any ground for saying if the image should be read from right to left or vice versa? And is there any info on how the scientists thoughtthe aliens would be able to decipher this message? - Redmess 23:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There's discussion above about image flips, but the current image on the right side of the page is flipped (at least as of 05 Oct 2006). (???) It doesn't match the text description. And it doesn't match the clipped images embedded in the text.

Chilbolton Message
We have no prooves, that Chilbolton Message was a "joke", maked by some group of "circlemakers". It is impossible to do such a precission work during 1 night, using a board with rope. Methinks, that judging it as a "joke" is in valid with Wikipedia neutral point of view policy.

PS. Sorry for mistakes in english, but i do not know that language very well ;) 82.139.160.143 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The burden of the prove is on those who pretend its origin is extraterrestrial. The most likely cause by far is the one stated in the article, a joke, and a very funny one if I may add :) You will probably enjoy reading the article on cropcircles as it may help you understand how this "impossible" things are done. jbc 03:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Since we have no proof that ETs exist, but we have plenty of proofs that "jokers" exist, I'll bet that Chilbolton is a joke. --Gspinoza 20:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Nucleotide encoding
I can't work out how the nucleotide formulae are encoded. Anyone care to enlighten me? 143.252.80.110 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've just updated that section. I hope it is more clear now! jbc 03:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Images
To those watching this page: there's some confusion about the copyright status of the images in this article. Some of them are tagged as fair use, other as public domain, some as GFDL, which is highly implausbile. Rather than forcing this through Images for Deletion, I'd rather work with those editing this page. I don't believe that any of these are uncontestably in the public domain. Fair use of some of them is of course acceptable. If you would, please choose two or three that you really need to illustrate the article, tag them using Non-free fair use in (i.e. ) and include a statement on the image description page saying why they are necessary to illustrate the article. I'll delete the ones you don't need. I'd really appreciate your cooperation in this; thank you. Chick Bowen 21:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but why use images at all? For example, the numbers part can be coded as:
 * {| style="font: 8pt;" cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 border=1 rules=off


 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * }
 * I'm sure there's nicer ways of doing it with a bit more tweaking. Or alternatively, it wouldn't take much time to recreate the images using a 72x23 canvas, which could be scaled up by Mediawiki as needed. Mike Peel 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * }
 * I'm sure there's nicer ways of doing it with a bit more tweaking. Or alternatively, it wouldn't take much time to recreate the images using a 72x23 canvas, which could be scaled up by Mediawiki as needed. Mike Peel 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * }
 * I'm sure there's nicer ways of doing it with a bit more tweaking. Or alternatively, it wouldn't take much time to recreate the images using a 72x23 canvas, which could be scaled up by Mediawiki as needed. Mike Peel 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * bgcolor="black" |
 * }
 * I'm sure there's nicer ways of doing it with a bit more tweaking. Or alternatively, it wouldn't take much time to recreate the images using a 72x23 canvas, which could be scaled up by Mediawiki as needed. Mike Peel 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * }
 * I'm sure there's nicer ways of doing it with a bit more tweaking. Or alternatively, it wouldn't take much time to recreate the images using a 72x23 canvas, which could be scaled up by Mediawiki as needed. Mike Peel 14:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Signal Characteristics
There is nothing in this article about the signal itself. Questions I have after reading it are, what was the power of the transmission, how were the 1s & 0s modulated. Also maybe something about how that modulation will be affected by its travel through space, i.e. likelihood of intelligible reception. I have found some info on the power on the web, but I have been unable to find out how the signal was modulated was it pulse lengths like morse code kind of with continous wave, or something more complicated? If I can find any of that, I'll try and add it, but I've been unsuccessful so far.

Man
Is the graphic of a "man", or of a human being? Is it showing the average height of a male of the species, or the average height of all humans? Who is being sexist here, the people who created the message, or the people who wrote this article? :) Savatar 03:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's extremely unlikely that the stick figure would be recognized as anything by an alien species, it really doesn't matter. To our human eyes it's clearly supposed to resemble a stylised human being, but for someone who's never seen a human being this could be extrapolated to just about anything. How are they supposed to know we have heads, for example? And what if the aliens have no eyesight, so "visual" information means little to them? They might be able to decipher the information as a grid, but the "images" will be meaningless or completely misinterpreted. And so on, and so on...
 * To answer your question, however, the article states that the image represents "a graphic figure of a man and the dimension (physical height) of an average man". The figure quoted (1.76 m) is indeed the (or rather "some") average height of a man, not a human being, which would come out lower. So the authors of the message are to blame for this bias, although, as I said, it really doesn't matter much. 82.92.119.11 20:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing the graphic is meant to represent a human being in general, so I changed it in the article. As for the height, it might actually represent the closest value you can get to the average human height, in increments of the wavelength (.126 m).  I also removed the parenthetical hex value--I can't see how that has any relevance.  BryanD 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Nucleotides
Referring to the nucleotides section, User:68.72.38.125 asked on the main article page:
 * Can anyone explain this differently or better? I understand everything but the way to draw the pictograms of elements with binary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.72.38.125 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mike Peel 20:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

They are supposed to be written as chemical coding, with the first number representing the atom number, and the second the amount of atoms in a molecule. I dont know more details however, it seems rather confusing to me. - Redmess 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

So, about Pluto
Is it too late to remove Pluto from our list of planets in the message? --64.86.141.133 19:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It is. See also the Voyager Golden Record and the Pioneer plaque, which feature Pluto. 86.134.213.12 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just send out another message, record, and plaque saying "Sorry, we fudged on the last message/record/plaque. It's eight planets, not nine. No really, we do know how to count." Bwhack 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Boy, will those alies be confused. "They said 9, but I only see 8. You sure this is the right place?" - Redmess 15:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * May be they would also count objects that we have still not discovered, or objects that humans have unilaterally decided not to call planets. :-) -- Paddu 14:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sugar
I don't understand where it shows? PS: And why information about number of nucleotides was incorrect? --Valodzka 20:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Pictures are back to front
The main picture on the top right corner of the article, which shows all the messages is orientated to read left to right (so the top row shows 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10).

Where as all the pictures in the explanation section are oriented to read right to left (so the picture in Arecibo_message shows 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1)

All the pictures in the explanation section are orientated right-to-left. The text describs the message as something that is to be read right-to-left.

So the opening picture being read left-to-right is very very very confusing, especially when one looks at it while reading the opening paragraph.

I'd assume if the picture is being sent as a binary signal, there is no right orientation. We're relying on the aliens out there to put the thing together correctly.

But for the sake of the article, i say we orientate the pictures so they all face the same direction. Because looking at the pictures under the "explanation" section after seeing the opening picture is quite confusing.

So, can someone either flip the opening picture, or flip all the explaination pictures? -- `/aksha 11:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Some questions
Here are some questions I would like to see answered in the article (and I will research them myself if I have time): Cheers -- FP (talk)(edits) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What was the 'strength' of the signal? How strong will it be after being dissipated across 25,000 light years? Will it even be detectable by any reasonable means?
 * 2) How exactly was the signal encoded/modulated etc? How long is the message (temporally)? Was it just sent once or multiple times?
 * 3) Looking at the space about the earth... what 'percentage' of the sky was the message sent to? I.e. was it beamed out in an arc/cone covering X percent of the sky or just a 'point'?

Base 7?
Would it be worth mentioning that the numbers at the top might be interpreted as a base 7 numeral system? The 8, 9, and 10 look like symbols for 10, 11, and 12 (the left side being 0, 1, and 2 respectively, and the right side a 1 in each case). Roger 03:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well that's called base-8. But then, should we also mention that the no. of nucleotides is in base-65536 and the human population & telescope diameter in base-64? Also won't laymen get confused when we say binary as well as base-8, unless we give some explanation. -- Paddu 07:06, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

When we receive a possibile answer?
As you can see in Great Globular Cluster in Hercules the distance is 20.1 kly, so the message started in 1974 will arrive in ~20'075. But 'Messier 13' have a diameter of 145 light-years, so the nearest stars will receive the message in 19'930 and a possibile answer could reach the Earth in 39'885, while the farthest stars will receive the message in 20'220 and a possibile answer could reach the Earth in 40'465. Do you agree? --Gildos 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Transmission power
The article read "a power of 3 trillion watts". That's unfeasibly large, so I checked the SETI page. That says the power was 1000kWatt, but the signal was very tightly focussed, thus being equivalent to 20 trillion watts if the signal had been omnidirectional. I've corrected the article. --RichardNeill 09:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the code for the whole Arecibo Message?
And do you think it would the message would be sent quicker if we used a light transmitter?
 * This is the whole message... all 1679 bits of it! And since light and radio waves are the same thing, they both travel in space at the same speed! So it wouldn't be any faster to send as a light beam. Slothie 11:33, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't light quicker than radio? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.16.99 (talk) 05:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Radio waves and light travel at the exact same speed. Andy120290 18:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, radio waves ARE light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.173.247 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More correctly, radio waves and light are both part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Different ranges of frequencies are called by different names.  Each frequency is affected differently when it passes through different materials.  Refraction (as can be seen in lenses) is actually because the wave slows down entering and leaving the lense.  Rainbows are caused by different frequencies refracting differently through raindrops.  However, all of these frequencies propagate at the same rate through a vacuum.  The "speed of light" (abbreviated "c") is just a shorthand for the "speed of all electromagnetic radiation through a vacuum". &mdash; Val42 20:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More correctly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.173.247 (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)