Slashdot Mirror
Are We Alone in the Universe?
cynic10508 writes "CNN is running a story about how ours might be a unique solar system. Of the 100+ systems currently known to contain planets, all contain seemingly only gas giants. However, this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth." There are also
BBC and Space.com stories.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
we develop ways to detect extrasolar smaller planets systematically...
Why is this even being posted here?
Its too early to say there are none or few rocky body systems out there. First off, we haven't even come close to surveying a representative portion of the sky, and second, we don't yet have good enough technology to detect small planets. If we were 500 light years away from our system, we probably wouldn't be able to detect earth.
Moo.
How frigging arrogant would we have to be to honestly believe that in the ENTIRE universe, we are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY UNIQUE?
Come on, people... Seriously.
...Also, I didn't know Buggalo could fly.
"... this may be a case of current technology and techniques being unable to detect planets similar to Earth ..." Yeah, exactly. If the only way you have to detect planets orbiting other stars is to look for the gravitational effects of large, massive planets orbiting close their stars, then is what you're going to find.
It occurs to me that a useful way to think about these "hot Jupiters" may be as failed double stars, not planets equivalent to our own gas giants. And we already know that double stars are more common than singletons like the Sun. (Er, I think -- someone please tell me if I'm wrong.)
One thing that frustrates me about the articles I've seen on this subject is that they don't explain why formation of big, close-in gas giants precludes formation of Earth-like planets farther out. Accretion disks are really, really big; surely parts of them can clump into gas giants while others slowly form smaller, rocky planets?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I bought 120 lottery tickets and didn't find a winner. Must not be possible to win the lottery then, right?
for every one system we know of, there are one billion that we don't. It's a little premature to say we're unique when we have such little data to work with.
We have a hard enough time getting along with each other on Earth. I almost don't want to know how we would get along with inhabitants of another solar system.
--
Are you a Chipotle Fan?
Nah, been done before....
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
"My pessimism goes to the point of suspecting the sincerity of the pessimists"
It's "news" for dummies.
With current technologies (and the amount of time we've been looking) we can only detect very large planets that are quite close their parent star...
SURPRISE!!!! We've only found systems with large planets close to the parent star.
Big news.
Next story, please.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Our situation with regard to the physical parameters of our corner of the universe seems to be average:
Average sun
Average location in the galaxy (OK, maybe a little out in the backwater, but we have traversed more dense regions of the spirals of our galaxy in the last x billion years).
Average matter content (gases, etc...)
What might be the case could very simply be that space is awfully big, and we have only scanned a tiny portion of it in a tiny portion of the ways possible to scan it.
I mean come on, if the observable universe is TINY, and we've only examined a TINY portion of that, isn't it a bit too early to say "That's it, we're all alone" ?
After all, why have such a huge place all for the likes of us? What a waste...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
all contain seemingly only gas giants
Maybe that's because our current science is only good enough to detect incredibly massive (*cough cough gas giants cough*) planets? Gee, thanks CNN, great job writing another logically inadequate article for the igrnorant masses to buy right into.
We know that no other planet in our solar system has intelligent life (at least that we can see), and it appears that we are an anomaly among planetary systems, just as our planet is anomaly in our own solar system (70% water, atmosphere, just the right distance from the sun for life, temperature, etc.
Whatever the odds that life exist elsewhere, we should remember that we have a special planet here, and we should take care of it. We have no other feasible options in the near future.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Yes we're alone. And even if we weren't, I don't think another race is just going to drop in and say, "Hi".
Take a look at any of the alien visitation movies we make. Aliens come to Earth. Aliens attack humans. Humans unite (that's the truly unbelieveable part of these movies). Humans destroy all Aliens.
What species in their right minds is going to come to a planet who's inhabitants immediately imprison and disect anything remotely extra terrestrial?
just export our lawyers to other planets, then "try" to find them again.
That way we will always know there is life outside the planet, but we will have no desire to find it.
this is such a non-story. if i want to read pseudo-science, i'll browse cnn.com.
Scenario 1: We find life outside our planet, but that life turns out to be nothing more interesting than slightly-better-tasting cattle.
Scenario 2: We find ourselves on the receiving end of Scenario 1.
Let's face it, if the odds of finding intelligent life outside our solar system are astronomical, then consider the odds of that life being even remotely analagous to us, development-wise. We're either gonna be finding some glorified alien algae or uber-beings who don't even blink when their uber-Cuisinarts routinely vaporize solar systems...
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Seems they are formulating the wrong question.
Even if we are the only earth-like body in the universe (a laughable assumption), there may be life on those gas giants.
On the other hand, considering the vastness of space and the difficulty traversing it, we may be effectively alone in a universe teeming with life.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Our technology really is no where near good enought to prove the non existance of Earth like planets elswhere.
However in astronomy class I did learn one quite interesting thing about the Earth. Apparently the Sol system was forming just as a near by super nova happend. This caused a lot of short term radioactive material to be injected into our solar system. This stuff has mostly long since decayed, but it provided some extra heat to melt the earth's crust and cause the "iron catastrophy". Basically the Earth became molten and heavy elements began to fall the earth core, this caused more heat melting the crust further.
This is why most of the earths heavy metals are in the core. So it is possible (though no proven) that the Earth might have had very different geological properties AND that a different mix of elements would have been around when life was forming had this "lucky" coiencidence not happend.
It involves five methods currently (all of which are outlined in the article):
I think that we should be more concerned about who will have the upper hand if we ever do encounter aliens. It would suck to come into contact with a cranky alien civilization bent on being jerks and being some kind of ant under a magnifying glass to them. I would be much more comfortable if We held the magnifying glass. I mean I mean I would feel much more comfortable if we could show an alien civilization the kindness, compassion, and generosity of the human race and our wonderful track record for being that way....yeah yeah that is it
Hey, it is even hard to find intelligent life on this planet.
Fight Spammers!
100 systems is what, the first 10 light years radius? (If that?) How large is our own galaxy, how many galaxies are there, and much is all this constantly changing?
"Gee, we've sampled 100 star systems out of 900 trillion, and none so far are like our own. Nevermind that the technology we have can't even detect earth-like planets except by the dumbest luck, I think we have a CNN science story! Don't forget to add something vaguely religious the last paragraph of the article."
...Earth isn't hurtling through space at high speed relative to nearby objects, and certainly don't have a sense that it's orbiting the sun. Thankfully science is informed by more than intuition.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
There are 200 billion suns in this Galaxy and 125 billion galaxies. The process in which solar systems are formed is caused by forces of physics and the laws of chemistry which are the same through the universe. Just because a terrestial planet has not been seen by human eyes or touched by human feet does not mean it does not exist. In the same way that Europeans in the middle ages could deduce that the earth is round from seeing ships sink in the horizon, we can deduce that planets like Earth or Mars are plentiful throughout the Galaxy. Our geocentricity misleads us to use phrases like "Known Universe" in the same way that Eurpoean history misleads us to call America the "New World" and to say that Columbus "Discovered" America.
In audio
Fight Spammers!
HE UNIVERSE:
4. Population
It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination.
--The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Of the extrasolar star systems that we are able to analyze using current methodologies , we have only been able to identify the solar systems that contain gas giants. The only method we have is to take a photograph, wait a while, then photograph the star again, and hope that we can see some variation in the brightness that indicates a large rotating object. That's why the first planet discoveries were of binary arrangements, with gas giants in close orbits around their parent stars, since they had fast orbits, we could (more) easily compare over shorter time. So, given that all the recent discoveries are of inhospitable gas giant system, I can understand why some uneducated reporters might get discouraged.
One writeup on Yahoo made a good point... we have only had the technology to observe at this level of detail for about a decade, while the only directly observable gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn) have orbits of 12 and 26 earth years, respectively. So, in the next few years, expect a lot more "gas giant" discoveries, assuming that the orbits of gas giants in "life-friendly" systems are relatively equivalent to ours.
Then, we'll have to wait until we have telescopes with better resolution and/or more megapixels, so we can resolve better detail of smaller earth-sized objects...
From the article: Either way, it is time to start thinking about the possibility that our system is unique or at least unusual, Livio said.
:)
OK. Perhaps this is true but ultimately I wonder; so what? Even if another M class planet doesn't exist what's the big deal? Even in that model of the universe that doesn't exclude the idea that there may be other life forms. It also doesn't end the possibility of human expansion. While it is possible it's also trivial on many levels.
And with the rate we're going it gives plenty of time for other planets to form...
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
This article is bogus. About 95% of the planets have been detected so far by causing subtle doppler-motion shifts in their parent stars. The lower threshhold of measuring this doppler shift from earth observatories can only measure the really massive and/or fast (close-in) planets. Several planned space-based observatories will improve on this. They will either have more sensitive doppler or use alternative methods such eclipsing transits (Kepler probe) , or direct observation of planets.
"Are We Alone in the Universe?"
With an estimated world population of 6 Billion.
And a projected population of 9 Billion in 2050.
We would be the generation worried about being "alone".
I got my information here:
http://www.prb.org/datafind/datafinder.htm
Cheers,
--The Dude
all of us 6 billion human beings. Alone and lost.
"Sometimes I think we're alone in the universe, and sometimes I think we're not. In either case the idea is quite staggering."
It's amazing that not knowing the answer to this is somehow more comfortable than knowing the answer, either way.
"Why can't everyone just be straight with me?"
"Because we live in a bendy world, dear."
"Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space."
It's about significance.
The odds of drawing a Royal Straight Flush in poker is one in 2,598,960.
But one in 2,598,960 also happens to be the odds of drawing any configuration of five cards. It is just that the Royal Straight Flush has more significance in the game, from the rules we created.
If we consider our existence to be significant, then we may believe ourselves and the world around us "designed" especially for us to exist.
Sentient creatures evolved on another world, breathing a cyanide atmosphere of 40 bars pressure, would probably at some point early in their evolution consider the rules "made up" especially for them, not themselves an evolutionary product of their environment.
The universe draws from a big stack of cards, and, at least once, life has come up. This, however, doesn't mean that the lucky combination is associated with a high score. It's just important to us, who happens to be that hand of cards.
To have something like Star Trek where several spacefaring nations simultaneously arise and carve out competing empires is going to be even less likely. Imagine a race that had a 2 million year head start over us in settling the planets in our galaxy. Somehow I don't see us having the technological ability to even compete, much less even be an equal. The same goes for us if we explore even just the Milky Way. If we travel 10,000 light years to find a planet who is technologically at the Bronze Age (building pyramids and basically like Egypt when it was "THE" major political power on the Earth), do they have a chance against us after we have developed interstellar travel capabilities?
All of this has been pointed out by people like Sagan and Hawking. While there may be intelligent lifeforms other than mankind on another planet, the likelyhood of us actually finding a species that can deal with abstract symbols and advanced toolmaking is quite unlikely. If you had come to the Earth 5 million years ago (short time compared to the age of the universe), all you would have found are some very primitive humans, or even just chimpanzees that roamed open savannahs. Certainly not a technological civilization.
I would be very surprised if we found something like the Klingon empire, or even just the Kzinti. Alien races make wonderful science fiction, but I don't see how they can be found.
The bigger question is are we stable enough to have the time to find or be found by intelligent life? We haven't been here and aware but for the briefest period of time, and unless we diversify out into the universe, we're only here until the next big earth crossing body doesn't quite cross and we join the earlier earthlings (dionsaurs) as a natural resourse on this rock.
Don't bunch up, one grenade will get us all.
Well if religion's brought up, I feel I must chime in with my islamic 2 dinars. As to the problem from a Christian perspective, which I for obvious reasons don't share though (raised Catholic mind you, and my Dad's a minister currently), what I wonder would be what does that say about Christ being God's unique son, whose atoning sacrifice is supposed to save humanity? What about all the other supposed species of beings out there who probably have not heard of Jesus? Are they all damned? Why would God only send his "son" down to one species. If one then thinks "well maybe He incarnated amongst them too" that definately throws the Christian doctrine in bind, about Jesus being unique and all, and rather relativizes the whole thing. Plus, multi incarnations (reincarnations?) definately seems to be drifting far out of accepted Christian orthodoxy.
;-) The imam (for us shias, one of the twelve successors of the Prophet Muhammad) says something like: Do you think yours is the only Adam God has created, rather, He has created thousands upon thousands of other Adams, and yours is but the last.
Anyway, that's your faith, I can only really comment best on mine. I'm a shia muslim, and in the corpus of our traditions, there are a number of references to there being many other Adams out there, other worlds with living beings. Like one that goes something like (don;t have the exact reference in front of me, Im at work
There are other traditions like this, and the Quran does mention a plurality of worlds. Since we don't believe in the Christian paradigms, original sin, Christ being the incarnation and son (we believe in him as a human prophet, not a god-man), the atonement through crucifixion, etc., these concerns wouldn't really affect our theology.
That said, I'm not holding my breadth for us to soon, or even ever, make contact through means of technology. The universe is a mighty big place, our galaxy being only one many many more. Add to that, the enormity of the ages since it was created, who knows where or even when to look for other beings as us or otherwise? But as we say, God knows best....
Statistical sample = infinitesimal
Extrapolation = huge
CNN = slow science news day, apparently.
AFAIK (IANAAA) our current detection methods are pretty much one of two methods:
1) observing wobble in a sun caused by orbitting planets
2) slight occlusion of the sun if the planet passes in front of it.
Both of these methods are ONLY any good for detecting MASSIVE (!!) bodies close to their primary. Further, both very rapidly become useless if these very particular beasts are not present. Plus, we've examined such a vanishingly small proportion of even the local stellar neighborhood, on any rounded scale we've seen almost precisely 0%. Nice sample size.
Ergo, this would really only be somewhat significant if we found that every star we've analyzed has such a system, this would make it depressingly likely that this is a COMMON configuration. But the fact that a statistically small sample of the measured stars have these giants in close orbits conversely suggests that, as predicted, we are *probably* only looking at a tiny segment of a 'solar system bell curve'.
Conversely, as already pointed out here, the fact that we have a humdrum Sun, humdrum element signature, humdrum stellar neighborhood (a little on the sparse side right now), suggest that our system is more likely to be a humdrum, average system.
-Styopa
Why on earth does this "have to be said"?
What, exactly, is the imperative here? What valuable, vital insight into this discussion about finding alien life have you contributed by bringing up Bin Laden?
What next? "We may be close to finding an AIDS vaccine, but please keep in mind that we haven't found Bin Laden yet, so don't get your hopes up!"
Thanks for putting everything into perspective, Captain Insight. Now, please, explain what exactly that perspective is.
Thanks.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
We are talking about a very fine tuned universe, and a lot of parameters that had to be set just right not just once but over a long period of time and repeatedly.
Yes, when we observe the universe, it does indeed seem fine-tuned to allow us to exist. If it weren't, we wouldn't be here to observe it!
That's the idea of the Anthropic principle - The only universe we can come to exist in, and observe, is the universe that will be able, at some point in time, to host us.
Have you ever seen a perfectly round stone that was a product of a natural process?
Can't remember I've seen one. I would probably take the finding of a perfectly round stone as evidence that someone has purposefully polished it. However, I do not believe that complex life-forms such as ourselves, and the universe needed to support them are evidence of purpose or intelligent design.
On the other hand.... I have this idea, that we never will be able to know how and why the universe came into being. Also, I don't think the question of what matter and energy really is, have any meaning. We may find smaller and smaller bullding blocks of nature, and with those explain the presence of bigger building blocks - but at the lowest level, I don't think there is any answer to the question of what stuff is made of or why it's there.
So, bottom line, I can't say I know the universe didn't come into being by intelligent design. It is just not necessary for us to exist.
A lot of posts have put forth the "Oh, how likely is it that in all the entire universe we are the ONLY planet to have life?" type argument. (I'll call this the "oh come on" argument.)
But this argument is not exactly correct. If you took a random planet out of the universe and it had life, then you would be justified in thinking that there are probably more life-bearing planets in the universe.
But that is not the position we are in. The earth is not a random planet, it's the one we live on.
Suppose, for argument's sake you had a bag full of, say, a billion marbles. You know that all the marbles are either black or red.
Situation 1: You reach into the bag without looking and pull out a red marble. What are the chances that there are any other red marbles in the bag?
Situation 2: Someone else looks through the entire bag and tells you that there is at least one red marble in the bag. What are the chances that there are at least two red marbles in the bag?
In situation 1, if there is really only one red marble in the bag, then you hit the billion in one chance of drawing it out. Pretty unlikely.
But in situation 2, you have no way of knowing what the chances for more red marbles are. All you know is that there is at least one.
We are in situation 2. We didn't draw Earth randomly out of the bag.
Basically the "oh come on" argument boils down to this:
"But if there is only one planet with life on it, what are the odds that that out of all the zillions of planets we happen to live on the one with life?"
I'm not saying that we are definitely alone in the universe, just that the mere fact that we live on a planet with life does not give us any information on the probability of there being life on other planets.
Maybe the chance of life arising is so miniscule that it really did only happen once.
If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
How would you hold your breadth, anyway? Sometimes I hold my width, especially after eating spicy chicken wings, but I don't think I've ever held my breadth.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
There was actually a science fiction story about this subject, whose name and author i unfortunatly forget.
It was set in a universe with lots of sentient races about. Some explorers found a planet where something very similar to the whole son of god/death/resurection/whetever thing had just happened a few years or decades ago.
One of the explorers decided this must mean that god sends christ down to every planet so that each species would be enlightened or whatever. So he becomes obsessed with having the chance to actualy meet the son of god, and sets out to visit every habitable planet in the universe in turn until he finds one where christ is actually there right then.
This is all told from theperspective of one of the explorers who choose to stay on the first planet and document everything as carefully as possible. I think he had some theory that if it was true, that the other guy would never be able to catch christ in the act and a few years off was the best anyone could do, so they might as well make the best of the current situation. His reason for this was that not only were there the obvious statistical difficulties, humans had already been "saved" once, so as a human the other guy would never be allowed to meet christ and get a "second chance," or something like that. I guess this was building off the "christ is unique" idea you mentioned, which i'd never heard before.
Interesting thought experiment type SF but probably a good thing it was a short story. As a non-christian i most likely would have gotten annoyed at a novel length treatment.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
"Gee we don't see anything so far, so I guess we are alone" What kind of crap is this? We have stone-age technology to look at this crap. Large number statistics support life on other planets. Just that they may be 10 galaxies away.
-- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus