"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> Robin asked:
> > Care to make any predictions about observational features
> > of these objects? That is, if they were MB or JB, what
> > would that predict about them?
> The 6 unresolved objects (because the HST didn't take images
> frequently enough to provide the full light curves) have
> a guesstimated mass of ~0.25 M_jupiter which would put them
> clearly in the Jupiter Brain class. Alternatively they
> could be Matrioshka Brains running off fusion reactors
> (e.g. no internal star). I would presume that the spectral
> properties and temperature of these would be similar to those
> previously stated, but Anders might have other opinions.
Or old black holes. What is the Hawking estimates on the lifetime of
black holes in the range of .1-1.0 jupiters?
> I believe that Ander's Jupiter Brain design has a lot of fiber
> connecting the internal nodes, if so, one needs a *lot* of
> silicon for that. If the spectra of the stars in the GC
> indicate they are low in C/Si/O relative to other less useful
> elements (perhaps Na, K, Ca, He, Kr, etc.) then that could
> be an indication that star lifting is occurring and the
> useless materials are being recycled back through the stars
> until they end up as something more useful.
Well, you are assuming that they use silicon/electron based computation.
If instead they use photon/quantum well based computation, they could
construct on any more populous substrate, from lithium and carbon, etc.
I'd look for unusual concentrations of elements popular in laser
mechanisms: fluoride, CO2, etc. which would be needed to supply
concentred high power photons for computing nodes.
Similarly, these would be interesting targets to look for coherent
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:48 MDT