3 ms·

Could an object like 3I theoretically tell when eyes are being pointed at it? Probably not ground-based eyes, but possibly Hubble. i.e. "the inhabitants are s

Could an object like 3I theoretically tell when eyes are being pointed at it? Probably not ground-based eyes, but possibly Hubble. i.e. "the inhabitants are scanning us"

dysfunction 1y ago
I don't believe so, unless the object had such a powerful telescope it could image Hubble itself in high definition and literally see where it was pointing, which would require an absurdly large lens. A telescope like Hubble absorbing light is purely passive, it doesn't emit anything "back" that would tell the observed object it is being observed.
Enginerrrd 1y ago
Observing passive observation systems over those distances is pretty unlikely even with an optimistic view of future technology. But perhaps not impossible. We have all kinds of space radars though that are active.
yetihehe 1y ago
If it had several kilometer wide imaging array, then yes. Hubble and other telescopes are totally passive optics. You need to see the distant dot and have enough resolution to identify it as a telescope and see that it is pointing at you. Seeing hubble from more than 1 au would require optics about 8km in size. This doesn't need to be one giant mirror, could be two cameras 8km apart, but synchronized optically (distance known to a small part of wavelength of light). Seeing Hubble as more than 1 pixel to tell that it's a telescope pointing at you needs something much larger.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
mathgeek 1y ago
Theoretically, any sentient being with the necessary technology to get a craft to our solar system and spot the aiming of a telescope at that distance would have even better technologies for detecting what we are doing.
- XorNot 1y ago
  It's a logistics problem: if you can build one of something, you can definitely build two.
  - nocoiner 1y ago
    Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?
  - mcswell 1y ago
    If you can build two, then build three. In fact, always do things in threes.
lmm 1y ago
Extremely unlikely, given that there is no "active" scanning happening (no "give me a ping, Vasily"), we're just passively looking. I'd think the most likely way to find out would be listening in on our radio broadcasts (I assume someone's been talking about this object on the radio) rather than being able to directly detect the Hubble being pointed at it.
- lazide 1y ago
  We have a LOT of energy outbound in the form of space radars and interplanetary comms. We’re lit up like a christmas tree.
  - lmm 1y ago
    Sure, but none of that was pointed at this comet specifically.
    - lazide 1y ago
      Ah, fair point - I see what you mean.

Could an object like 3I theoretically tell when eyes are being pointed at it? Probably not ground-based eyes, but possibly Hubble. i.e. "the inhabitants are scanning us"

dysfunction 1y ago

I don't believe so, unless the object had such a powerful telescope it could image Hubble itself in high definition and literally see where it was pointing, which would require an absurdly large lens. A telescope like Hubble absorbing light is purely passive, it doesn't emit anything "back" that would tell the observed object it is being observed.

Enginerrrd 1y ago

Observing passive observation systems over those distances is pretty unlikely even with an optimistic view of future technology. But perhaps not impossible. We have all kinds of space radars though that are active.

yetihehe 1y ago

If it had several kilometer wide imaging array, then yes. Hubble and other telescopes are totally passive optics. You need to see the distant dot and have enough resolution to identify it as a telescope and see that it is pointing at you. Seeing hubble from more than 1 au would require optics about 8km in size. This doesn't need to be one giant mirror, could be two cameras 8km apart, but synchronized optically (distance known to a small part of wavelength of light). Seeing Hubble as more than 1 pixel to tell that it's a telescope pointing at you needs something much larger.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

mathgeek 1y ago

Theoretically, any sentient being with the necessary technology to get a craft to our solar system and spot the aiming of a telescope at that distance would have even better technologies for detecting what we are doing.

XorNot 1y ago
It's a logistics problem: if you can build one of something, you can definitely build two.
- nocoiner 1y ago
  Why build one, when you can build two at twice the price?
- mcswell 1y ago
  If you can build two, then build three. In fact, always do things in threes.

lmm 1y ago

Extremely unlikely, given that there is no "active" scanning happening (no "give me a ping, Vasily"), we're just passively looking. I'd think the most likely way to find out would be listening in on our radio broadcasts (I assume someone's been talking about this object on the radio) rather than being able to directly detect the Hubble being pointed at it.

lazide 1y ago
We have a LOT of energy outbound in the form of space radars and interplanetary comms. We’re lit up like a christmas tree.
- lmm 1y ago
  Sure, but none of that was pointed at this comet specifically.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Ah, fair point - I see what you mean.