Are we listening for alien intelligence the wrong way?

Some astronomers believe we should search for alien intelligence at higher radio frequencies than those traditionally used in SETI. And they've already begun. The post Are we listening for alien intelligence the wrong way. The science-journalism coverage adds useful context, while the strongest evidential footing still comes from the underlying data, papers or institutional documentation.

That matters because Earth science becomes stronger when local observations can be placed inside a broader physical pattern that spans time and geography. The planet operates as a coupled system in which atmospheric, oceanic, cryospheric and solid-Earth processes interact across timescales from days to millions of years. A measurement that captures one variable at one location and one moment has limited interpretive value until it is embedded in the longer series and wider spatial coverage that allow natural variability to be separated from forced change. Here, it’s observing the sky on a night when the moon (not pictured) brightens the darkness. Now, for the first time, a team of astronomers has used ALMA to listen for signals from alien intelligence.

Join our 2026 Donation Campaign today. SETI astronomers search for radio signals, mostly from a specific band of the radio spectrum: the frequencies between 1.42 and 1.66 GHz.

Astronomers originally chose the frequencies between 1.42 and 1.66 GHz, which they call the water hole, because of its location between hydrogen (H) and hydroxyl (OH). It was the first-ever search for extraterrestrial intelligence using the powerful ALMA telescope.

The search for aliens using ALMA Mason said: For decades, SETI searches have concentrated on a relatively small part of the radio spectrum. The millimeter and submillimeter radio bands remain almost completely unexplored for SETI, so this is really about opening up a new area of parameter space to search.

The broader interest lies in linking the observation to climatic, geophysical or environmental dynamics that extend well beyond the immediate event or location. Earth science is unusual in that its most important questions operate on timescales that no single research career can observe directly, making the archival record, whether in ice, sediment, rock or satellite data, as important as any new measurement. Results that can be embedded in that record, and that either confirm or challenge the patterns it reveals, carry disproportionate scientific weight.

But their first attempt did reveal a hidden opportunity within every radio observation. Astronomers use data from ESA’s Gaia mission to get an idea of what population is within this stellar bycatch.

Because this item comes through EarthSky as science journalism, it should be treated as contextual reporting rather than primary evidence. Good science reporting can identify why a result matters, connect it to the wider literature and make technical work readable, but the decisive evidence remains in the original paper, dataset, mission release or technical record. That distinction is especially important when a story is later repeated by aggregators, because repetition increases visibility, not evidential strength.

The next step is to place the result inside longer time series and to compare it with independent instruments and independent sites. Earth system observations gain most of their interpretive power from network density and temporal depth, not from any single measurement however precise. Model simulations that assimilate the new data will help clarify whether the observation fits comfortably within known natural variability or represents a shift that existing models do not reproduce.

Source