Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Chairboy on April 15, 2005, 01:28:34 PM
-
Drake's Equation is a theory formed in the 1960s to try and provide a framework for guessing at how often intelligent life evolves elsewhere. (Creationist types, this conversation isn't for you, so please file out of the topic in an orderly fashion.) The idea behind it is to fill a template with some guesses about how often certain things occur and try to figure out, based on that, how likely it is we'll encounter other life.
It's not a law, and it's completely garbage in, garbage out, but it's a useful tool for conceptualizing how something as improbably as life might appear in a universe as incredibly ginormous as ours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake%27s_equation
That established, the continued lack of SETI discoveries have had people scratching their heads. "Why is it," they ask, " that even with incredibly conservative numbers, we still get N >> 1 answers (eg, strong suggestion that the universe should be teeming with life) but still nothing from the radio telescopes?"
I have a thought about a possible modification to the equation that might result in the number of likely civilizations staying the same, but dramatically decrease the time they would be detactable.
Back in the 1960s, the planet was putting out exponentially more and more RF as time went by. Transmitters for radio stations got bigger, satellites started appearing and signals were being beamed out into space, powerful new radar that literally heated up the air started being used, it was a cornucopia of high powered radio being broadcast, and it seemed obvious that this would continue.
Implicit in the original equation seems to be the assumption that, once they've reached the detectable level (via radio), the civilization would definately STAY there until the end of life.
Fast forward to today, and a different pattern seems to be emerging with relation to our planet. RF output, in spite of predictions 30 years ago, has started to decrease planet wide. The number of transmitters has increased, but the cellularization of communications and widespread infrastructure has reduced the wattage needed, even as high frequencies (which are less likely to survive over long distances) have gotten higher.
Satellite data links, once the norm, are being phased out in favor of high speed, low latency fiberoptic links that stretch to every continent.
The actual amount of detectable radiowaves outside the solar system is probably decreasing.
It's not unreasonable to imagine that eventually, RF will be replaced with some other communications method that offers improvements in range, speed, or cost.
With this in mind, the visualization of the detactable civilizations in the galaxy might be more accurately seen, not as beacons, but instead ephemeral 50-100 year bubbles that expand in all directions for a fraction of the total lifetime of the civilization.
So maybe the numbers people have come up with are right, but the odds of us catching them in their radio phase are worse then we thought.
I wanted to run this by y'all here before posting elsewhere, any thoughts?
-
Your hypothesis is already accounted for in the variable L.
Simply consider L to be the span during which a civilization can be communicated with by a recognizable means.
According the to article, Drake used 10 years - much lower than your supposed 50-100 years.
My own opinion:
The dimensions of the universe and astronomic time frames are so hard for us to grasp that we don't fully appreciate them when we think of things like intelligent life elsewhere.
If atheist scientists are correct and life on earth is a natural outcome of circumstances that exist on earth, and that, astronomically speaking, we're likely only to be around for a mere blip in time relative to the expanse of the universe, then the odds that, in this brief nano-second of galactic time, we encounter another civilization that is roughly on the same evolutionary clock as us (you know, within a million years or two) are so incredibly small that it's a waste of time to even think about it.
On the other hand, if we *were* to encounter signs of life from another planet, even if they were radio signals millions of years old, one might reasonably conclude that, due to the incredibly miniscule odds of two intelligent civilizations developing in such a fleeting moment - astromonically speaking - that it couldn't be random and that there must be a higher order at work.
-
"What is here is everywhere, what is not here is nowhere."
Sifting through equations, facts, occurances, communications, or the lack of the aforementioned, will lead to a relatively 'disappointing' probability as you described, Chair. To actually slap a number on a span of time from our frame of reference is setting ourselves up for a discouraging number.
Time shouldn't have any meaning. So we've been searching for roughly half a century. That may equate to the time it takes to take a dump in some other civilization. Or civilizations may have come and gone in the time it takes us to pinch a loaf. In an infinite universe, it is 100% possible and 100% probable.
I think that it just reminds us that we are merely a fart in the grand scheme of things. Different forms of communication certainly exist. What of the more exotic forms that we are currently unaware of (faster-than-light?)? We're looking for life "like us"; using EM waves... one of many discovered and also yet to be discovered. The possibility that life, intelligent life at that, can exist in other aspects currently incomprehensible to us at the moment (Ender's Game and the Buggers for example :)) exists one hundred percent.
Sorry, I'm jumping outside of the Drake discussion and into relativisms and probabilities.
Back to my original quote... In an infinite universe life exists anywhere and everywhere.
-
Makes sense to me. Another question is at the rate technology is increasing is even economically necessary to expand beyond the planet?
-
economically necessary? Meh. Just plain necessary? YES. :)
-
From a survival standpoint, we HAVE to expand. You don't keep all your eggs in one basket because if you drop that basket...
Good point about L, I hadn't thought of it that way, Samiam. Thanks!
-
In our ignorance, we look for ignorance.
-
I'm just wondering why we assume intelligent life exists?:lol
-
It would be truly arrogant to think we are the only some-what intelligent species in the Universe.
-
The Galactic "Skuzzy" may have placed a ban on our planet untill such time that we can find "Skuzzy", at which point we will have answered this question....................:)
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would be truly arrogant to think we are the only some-what intelligent species in the Universe.
Agreed.. Good work as always Skuzzinator :aok
-
Originally posted by Rino
I'm just wondering why we assume intelligent life exists?:lol
Have they found intelligent life in NJ?:)
:lol
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
From a survival standpoint, we HAVE to expand. You don't keep all your eggs in one basket because if you drop that basket...
How do you think this basket will drop?
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would be truly arrogant to think we are the only some-what intelligent species in the Universe.
Ascribing arrogance to a position doesn't detract from it's validity.
-
Arrogance, in of itself, has no basis in fact. The point of 'validity' is moot.
-
Because there is no data to support the claim and by definition it's impossible to prove a negative?
-
Proof is not always needed, otherwise theory would not exist and be acted on. Many proofs were resolved from theory.
In theory, intelligent life could exist on other worlds. Likewise, in theory, the opposite could exist. Either statement is probable. The difference lies in;
"No way in hell life could exist outside of our world".
versus
"While possible, I think it highly improbable life, as we know it, could exist on another planet".
Conceptually, they both mean the same thing, but the latter makes an attempt to honor the probabilites of life. The first statement is based on ignorance, or arrogance, or both and speaks from an emotional viewpoint.
-
Let me ask you Thrawn. Do you think it impossible for life to exist on other worlds?
-
This'll just degenerate into a semantics. If we keep the discussion in the operational language and get rid of the 'is of identity', then we can actually discuss the meat of the subject. Instead of arguing about how to argue, lets throw some arguments out there. ;)
-
"Do you think it impossible for life to exist on other worlds?"
on known worlds, if it does we'd never recognize it. however, since current technology cannot even detect the presence of potential life carrying worlds, it could exist. but as far as we know now, those other worlds are nonexistent, and the only position i could take is that life on other worlds does not exist.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Have they found intelligent life in NJ?:)
:lol
Oh that was harsh! But well done considering it came from someone in Oregon!
:rofl
Just playin around, I know ;)
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Because there is no data to support the claim and by definition it's impossible to prove a negative?
Works for religions.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
"While possible, I think it highly improbable life, as we know it, could exist on another planet".
Also, "could" exist on another planet is different from "does" exist on another planet. Which is also different from "has existed on another planet in such a way that we might discover it."
Opinion independent of Drake's Law:
Could: Near 100% certainty
Does: more than likely
We are ever able to know it: So improbable that if we ever did the coincidence would be on a scale so as to shake an antheists non-belief in God.
-
For some reason Thrawn was poking me with a stick.
I see no reason why life could not exist on other worlds. I left out 'known' worlds on purpose. The knowledge we have of other worlds is so pathetically small compared to the vastness of the Universe, there is really no way we can rule out the possibilty of life on other worlds.
-
I am trying to avoid 'semantics' Sam, so as to remove any chance of Oct going ballistic and having a meltdown before his time. :D
-
Why even use other planets?
There was supposed to be no life on the ocean floor or those deep caves in mexico, ops...
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Let me ask you Thrawn. Do you think it impossible for life to exist on other worlds?
No, I think it's highly probable that it does.
"For some reason Thrawn was poking me with a stick."
You made the one statement, that ususally shows up in these discussions about alien life, that gets my dander up.
-
Hehe, we all have our hot buttons eh?
Mine is, someone making absolute claims life could not exist outside our world. Or poking fun at people who do believe it to be possible.
Different sides of the same coin, as it were.
-
While the universe is so large I am pretty sure there is life on other planets, if it is existing at a somewhat equal level of evolution at the same time as we do is something else, I hope so, and I hope we make contact one day...
Ive always wanted to say "eat hot plasma death alien scum!"
-
Mommy Im scared!
I've never seen it before but,
I actually understood all that!:aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
How do you think this basket will drop?
1. Disease
2. Nanotechnology?
3. Solar flare
4. Gamma event from a nearby exploding star
5. Asteroid
6. Comet
7. Ajax
8. War
and that's just for starters. What about all the stuff we CAN'T predict?
Originally posted by Thrawn
Ascribing arrogance to a position doesn't detract from it's validity.
A note, you credited me with the quote you're responding to, but you took a Skuzzy quote and changed attribution to Chairboy.
-
Is there not bacteria in rocks that can survive in vacume and extrem temps?
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
A note, you credited me with the quote you're responding to, but you took a Skuzzy quote and changed attribution to Chairboy.
Forgot to edit the copy and paste. :o
-
does the frequency of a radio wave decrease over distance?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
It would be truly arrogant to think we are the only some-what intelligent species in the Universe.
AhhhHA!... you watched Cosmos too :)
-
It takes intelligent life to transmit radiowaves anywhere. Even if the probability of life is high, intelligent life will be much more scarce.
If the development of intelligent life took as long in other planets as it did on earth, we'll receive thier first transmissions after a thousand to several millions of years so be patient.
And I concur with what samiam said.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
It takes intelligent life to transmit radiowaves anywhere. Even if the probability of life is high, intelligent life will be much more scarce.
If the development of intelligent life took as long in other planets as it did on earth, we'll receive thier first transmissions after a thousand to several millions of years so be patient.
And I concur with what samiam said.
that is of course provided such life developed during the same timespan and at teh same moments in time as our own.
Thousand years sooner and we shouls start getting is now.
but hey we could have already missed such transmissions by 100 years as we've only been babbling in radio for around that long. Which is really a mere butterfly sneeze of a moment in time.
Timing is everything
-
This equation is horrible science.
Most of the parameters are GREAT unknowns and no uncertainties are stated.
For now, all scientist could detect are Jupiter type planets which are very close to their star. Just a reminder - our solar system is built the other way around: small planets in close orbits, the big gas blobs outside. Having massive Jupiters in inner orbits leads to instabilities of small planets orbits. So in practice, all system in which we can detect planets are poor candidates for detecting life.
A creating of a jupiter planet can be explained by theory (ok, weak). The creation of small planets is much more problemtic and simulations failed so far to explain them. I don't know where the fraction Ne is comming from.
So Fp and Ne have huge errors on them. I got no idea about the conditions needed to develop life, but I know the conditions that cannot develop life (or any complex molecules) simply due to the type of "sun" star. Most system are of the later type.
This equation does not link life-probability to the type of system.
There's a known reasonning stating that the earth is a unique case based simply on assuming no relation between stellar physics and life evolution. Just goes to show that with lausy statistics manipulation you can get any result.
I don't belive we are unique - just very improbable.
Bozon
-
The problem with science is it's always limited to current human understanding. Trying to understand life on other planets now is like a 16th-century scientist trying to understand nuclear physics--it's just not possible.
Sooner or later, we'll have some sort of breakthrough that is thought "impossible" by current known science, then we'll be able to see firsthand what awaits us in the universe.
There IS a constant--over the centuries, more often than not it's the naysayers who are ultimately proven wrong. The Earth was flat....no, it turned out to be round. Man could never ride without a horse....wait, we can. Man could never fly....but we learned. Man could never make it off the Earth....wait, we did.
J_A_B
-
Life is not unique to this planet.
-
What if we're already doomed as we've sent open radio transmittions for decades, an open invitation for a more advanced hostile alien population to attack us.
Hssshh... :eek: