Slashdot Mirror


Extraterrestrials Probably Haven't Found Us - Yet

kasparn writes "The Guardian today has a story about the Danish astrophysicist Rasmus Bjoerk, who recently conducted simulations on how long it will take to colonize the Milky Way. The basic idea is to send out probes in different directions (including various heights above the galactic plane). He estimates that it will take some 10 billion years to explore 4 % of the Milky Way. Since the age of the Universe is of the same order, his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet."

588 comments

  1. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First research warp drive.
    After that...

    1. Re:Heh by master_kaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly, who say Aliens - if they exist - hasn't come up with some vastly superior way of travel (maybe instant teleportation, etc). And even if they do know about our presence, why would they care? There are most likely millions of other planets that are available, why bother fighting over one that has inferior beings on it, that will most likely destroy themselves within the next few centuries. We most likely have nothing of value to them, so what would be the purpose of them "contacting us"

    2. Re:Heh by pbrammer · · Score: 4, Funny

      They want all of our "base"?

    3. Re:Heh by yurnotsoeviltwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, this simulation was about colonization. It's a lot easier to find something than to colonize it, especially in places that aren't very conducive to supporting life.

    4. Re:Heh by tha_mink · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bitten by the ole RTFA bug eh. The quote from the article is

      He found that even if the alien ships could hurtle through space at a tenth of the speed of light, or 30,000km a second, - Nasa's current Cassini mission to Saturn is plodding along at 32km a second - it would take 10bn years, roughly half the age of the universe, to explore just 4% of the galaxy. His study is reported in New Scientist today.

      No mention of colonization there.

      Plus

      Mr Bjork confined the probes to search only solar systems in what is called the "galactic habitable zone" of the Milky Way, where solar systems are close enough to the centre to have the right elements necessary to form rocky, life-sustaining planets, but are far enough out to avoid being struck by asteroids, seared by stars or frazzled by bursts of radiation.

      So there's that too. Looks like you should have taken a look at the article first.

      --
      You'll have that sometimes...
    5. Re:Heh by foursky · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Who's to say that the Aliens arent God, who put us here in the first place? Aliens plant humans here, sit back and watch, checking up on us every so often.

      Humans look at 9 planets in a solar system, and not very well mind you, and determine that life in the universe is unlikely? Who's to say that the Milky Way isnt 10% populated (1 habited planetary body per solar system)?

    6. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are some weird ass ideas dude.

    7. Re:Heh by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Larry Niven had a story similar to what you talking about that involved chocolate covered manhole covers.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    8. Re:Heh by navyjeff · · Score: 2, Funny
      Looks like you should have taken a look at the article first.

      Thanks for the summary. You must be new here.

    9. Re:Heh by gbv23 · · Score: 1

      Yes, its not so much "FTL" travel as taking shortcuts through space-time. To the ETs, we Earthers have only learned to travel on the "surface" of space. The ones that do (allegedly) visit Earth are bending the rules ("prime directive") and mostly remain in stealth-mode. The more advanced races send the occasional message that we're not joining the federation anytime soon until we stop destroying our planet and each other(so we're officially quarantined, but we get the occasional drive-by) We are slowly learning how we co-create our experience---so while we're around dimension 4.1, these guys are working with dimensions 5 & 6 (so space/time IS a bit different for them) I guess this would be such races as the Arcturians & Pleiadians -Rev. Whackjob http://talkingtoets.com/

    10. Re:Heh by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Exactly, who say Aliens - if they exist - hasn't come up with some vastly superior way of travel

      Who says travelling faster than light will ever be possible? We've never observed anything doing so, and we have some reasonably good theory that suggests that it's impossible.

    11. Re:Heh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      You have to assume too many things to know how long it will take.

      I can think of a few;
      How common is life, and from that point, how quickly do advanced alien races propagate?
      How do we know what the limits of space travel are, when we have only managed to get people to the moon?
      What does it matter what calculations you make, when you pull numbers out of your rear?
      Until "Danish astrophysicist Rasmus Bjoerk" actually meets some other advanced race besides the Swedish, how can he assume anything? According to him, we will need 1 Billion years (at least) for him to be proven right -- after that, the odds go up.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    12. Re:Heh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Did the scientist consider "electromagnetic radiation" in his calculations about "Probes seeking out only likely solar systems?" We have 50+ years of radio emissions streaming out at the speed of light from our Solar System. So that once a society reaches the industrial age, they would most likely be a lot more noticeable.

      Maybe in a few decades, we will learn that we need to be more circumspect, and try and hide better from alien races.

      Until then, a probe doesn't need to stumble upon us, it might be able to see patterns in radio transmissions. Who knows, if a race can figure out how to migrate through space, it might just know how to detect life from a distance (which I find highly likely).

      They should mod this topic as "speculation."

      >> And on Slashdot, I have the right NOT TO READ THE ARTICLE, before giving my valuable opinion.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    13. Re:Heh by speculatrix · · Score: 3, Funny

      this just in, 1000 telephone sanitizers landed at Kennedy Space Port.

    14. Re:Heh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a version of Intelligent design.

      Which I don't say is impossible -- just that counting on ID in a classroom, where you have to teach science is pointless and merely to make Fundies happy.

      I think that humans, in a few more decades, may very well want to "seed" nearby planets with modified earth DNA. The compulsion to do so will be hard to ignore. We could create food or useful organic crops on Mars and Venus -- or just experiment without ecological disaster on earth (or test ways to fix ecological disasters). There will be a lot of protest at first, but history shows that we ALWAYS do something that provides a profit -- whether or not it benefits people or any temporary form of ethics (worrying about Stem Cell, is just a ruse to get patents in the private domain, for instance).

      So, I don't know any way we could disprove that Aliens have not visited earth or manipulated genes in some way. The debate against ID is more about good science -- not trying to disprove every possible explanation.

      We also might be a creation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Who knows if that 90% "junk DNA" encodes for Meatball + a delicious sauce?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:Heh by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      We've seen groups of things travelling at greater than the speed of light (both sound and light)....granted the individual waves do not, but the collective [word used intentionally] does. So, we just put a whole bunch of probes in some loopy PVC pipe and, "poof", we can get across the galaxy in a fraction of the time.

      Layne

      References:
      http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/11/1
      http://news.softpedia.com/news/Light-that-Travels- Faster-than-Light-24167.shtml
      http://www.physorg.com/news88249076.html

    16. Re:Heh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > The ones that do (allegedly) visit Earth are bending the
      > rules ("prime directive") and mostly remain in stealth-mode.

      You realize the "prime directive" was a bass-ackwards attempt to explain why alien races didn't hassle with the Earth, rather than any sound philosophical concept, right?

      F*** any aliens who refuse to interfere in our planet on the principle of it. The @$$holes are our enemy, not our friend.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    17. Re:Heh by beckerist · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind too, our first inter-terrestrial transmissions were Hitlers speech in the 1936 Olympics. That's a mere 70 years, and in a 70 light-year radius, there isn't much out there. We also do not transmit at the powers required for intelligible communication. The "aliens" might see a bit of static on the channel, but to them it's probably not much more than random white noise. They might simply not know we exist!

    18. Re:Heh by nizo · · Score: 1
      Who says travelling faster than light will ever be possible? We've never observed anything doing so....


      The most likely reason we don't see them is because they are all headed right at us, and we won't see them until after they get here.

    19. Re:Heh by Lane.exe · · Score: 1
      Well, if we assume that life on other planets evolves at relatively the same rate as it does on our world (and I think this is a safe assumption), we have to assume a more or less uniform distribution of technology around similar planets. Unless we want to posit that alien life has grown up in an environment different than a terrestrial planet orbiting a similar star to our sun, we should expect alien technology to be roughly the same as ours, give or take a century or so.

      Plus, they have to life with the same laws of physics we do. Space (like they say) is big, really big, and it takes a lot of fuel and a lot of energy to move things around, not to mention lots of time.

      --
      IAALS.
    20. Re:Heh by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      Exactly, who say Aliens - if they exist - hasn't come up with some vastly superior way of travel (maybe instant teleportation, etc). And even if they do know about our presence, why would they care? There are most likely millions of other planets that are available, why bother fighting over one that has inferior beings on it, that will most likely destroy themselves within the next few centuries. We most likely have nothing of value to them, so what would be the purpose of them "contacting us"
      --
      We are the only ones with assholes to stick instruments in.

    21. Re:Heh by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      You realize the "prime directive" was a bass-ackwards attempt to explain why alien races didn't hassle with the Earth...

      Ignoring that it was a human idea, yes.

      , rather than any sound philosophical concept, right?

      Bzzt. Wrong. There are primitive tribes right here on Earth that the general population is not allowed to trade with. Right here in the United States are the dim echoes of the Native Americans, who suffered both from European incursion and their own adaptation of the cheapest elements of European Culture.

      "Let them evolve on their own, or they're become part of us" is a pretty good philosophical concept. It's just one step removed from "Free Will."

    22. Re:Heh by Lillesvin · · Score: 1

      It's funny... Alien lifeforms are always thought of as highly advanced compared to us. I think it's worth considering just how complex this world is (just think of how we --- apparently without too much effort --- get from an idea to communicating that idea to others. Then try to describe exactly what an idea is, that is, a generic idea --- nothing specific (and a headache with pictures doesn't count.)

      I think it's pretty darn impressive that we ever managed to invent any higher means of communication! (If you're going to start arguing that "animals have language too", take a look at Hockett's Design Features of Language and think about it.)

      Probably the most hilarious scenario would be, if it turned out that there was actually life somewhere else in the Milky Way, but it hadn't even advanced to the state of making fire yet. I mean, seriously, that'd be a kick in the nuts of every sci-fi fan out there (not that I particularly dislike them or anything, I quite like some sci-fi myself).

      --
      "Live free or don't."
    23. Re:Heh by peepleperson · · Score: 1
      Apologies for rising to your obvious flamebait, but...

      1) There are only eight planets. Do keep up.

      2)

      Who's to say that the Aliens arent God, who put us here in the first place? Me, and anyone else with an iota of sense. I can't completely discount it, but it is highly unlikely. I'd dig out some references, but you wouldn't read them anyway.

      3)

      Who's to say that the Milky Way isnt 10% populated (1 habited planetary body per solar system)? Again, me. Most solar systems are unable support a habitable planet. Prove me wrong, but I'm only basing this on all the science I've ever seen.

      Now to flamebait back... I bet you voted Bush.
    24. Re:Heh by rbanffy · · Score: 1
      Like humans, alien civilisations could shorten the time to find extra-terrestrials by picking up television and radio broadcasts that might leak from colonised planets. "Even then, unless they can develop an exotic form of transport that gets them across the galaxy in two weeks it's still going to take millions of years to find us," said Mr Bjork. "There are so many stars in the galaxy that probably life could exist elsewhere, but will we ever get in contact with them? Not in our lifetime," he added.

      Yes. He did

    25. Re:Heh by Fizzog · · Score: 2, Informative

      "we should expect alien technology to be roughly the same as ours, give or take a century or so"

      Not really.

      You need to allow for the mass extinctions in the Earth's past.

      If the mass extinction 250 million years ago (Permian-Triassic) had not occurred then intelligent life may have evolved on this planet over 200 million years ago.

      It would be quite possible for an alien race to be hundreds of millions of years more advanced than us just due to luck.

    26. Re:Heh by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      It depends on how probable you believe life existing elsewhere is. I believe that extraterrestrial life existing is quite probable given the size of the universe (though perhaps it is less probable in a single galaxy) and, given enough chances, civilizations should almost certainly exist that are more advanced than ours, even if the majority of civilizations are not. The challenge, then, is finding the civilizations in this vast universe. As the article points out, this is a formidable challenge. However, civilizations near our level should be easier to find because they manipulate large amounts of energy in ways that we may be able to detect (radio emissions, spacecraft, etc). Less advanced civilizations may not be there yet and more advanced civilizations may have moved on to entirely new technologies.

      To put it in probabilistic terms, the probability of finding a civilization may be very small, but the conditional probability of finding one near our level given that we find one at all is probably much higher.

    27. Re:Heh by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Who knows, if a race can figure out how to migrate through space, it might just know how to detect life from a distance (which I find highly likely). Heck, we can already do that. We can tell pretty well from a distance what an atmosphere is comprised of, for example. Any atmosphere which has a relatively constant, non-self-sustainable mixture, such as ours with its high proportion of oxygen, almost certainly indicates a planet covered with life. We just can't see quite far enough yet.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    28. Re:Heh by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I always thought the Christian God would be more like someone outside a simulation of the Universe rather than being part of it. Omniscience, omnipotence and being able to trigger the big bang aren't really possible for someone inside the Universe, but they are trivially easy if for someone running a matrix style simulation of the universe outside the universe.

      That said, all the usual objections to Solipsism apply to this. It seems like you would need proof from lots of different sources that our reality is not the outermost one before you started to take that sort of idea seriously. And you have to wonder if someone running a simulation would bother to intervene as opposed to nuking the simulation and restarting with different parameters.

      But if you think of science as asymptotically approaching the absolute Truth, discovering newer, more accurate theories could be considered analogous to finding new layers to reality. E.g. a grand unified theory would presumably contain relativity and quantum mechanics as approximations but would explain more than either of them. It would be the underlying mechanism in a sense that drives both of them.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    29. Re:Heh by rammer · · Score: 1

      In all of those instances the "collective" cannot convey information faster than the speed of light.
      See, it's all about information propagation. And the top speed for that is c.

      So unless you manipulate space-time with exotic matter or something similar you cannot travel faster than c.
      And even then it is dubious.

    30. Re:Heh by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      F*** any aliens who refuse to interfere in our planet on the principle of it. The @$$holes are our enemy, not our friend. So I guess you're against us in the war against the Ori.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    31. Re:Heh by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Exactly, who say Aliens - if they exist - hasn't come up with some vastly superior way of travel

      Who says travelling faster than light will ever be possible? We've never observed anything doing so, and we have some reasonably good theory that suggests that it's impossible.

      I've never been much for replacing good arguments, logic, and independent thinking with quotes from famous people, but here goes:

      "Things are only impossible until they're not."
              Jean-Luc Picard, 'Star Trek: The Next Generation'

      "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."
              Sir Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke's first law

      And please refrain from calling me out for attempting to refute your argument by quoting Star Trek and a science fiction writer. Picard and Clarke have a certain power around slashdot, and are to be considered honorary scientists among nerds.
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    32. Re:Heh by Ham_belony · · Score: 0

      If they would have been able to detect any of our radio signals and figure out there is an 'intelligent' life form behind it, they would : 1) Consider our species to be very primitive, any interference would go against the 1st directive. 2) Having Bush as president, they would most likely will pass us with wide angle. Would you like to get invaded by monkeys? 3) Why would they be interested in a planet that has been poluted beyond repair, where all natural resources are getting depleted and which will turn inhabitable in a few centuries.

    33. Re:Heh by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Right here in the United States are the dim echoes of the Native Americans, who suffered both from European incursion and their own adaptation of the cheapest elements of European Culture. You realize their is a vast difference between contacting a civilization and invading it, right?
      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    34. Re:Heh by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      That's the illusion of faster than light motion and it's entirely worthless. It's just like if you go outside and wave a laser pointer up in the sky. Somewhere out there is a red dot that looks like it's moving at ludicrous speed, but nothing really is in a meaningful sense.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  2. Forgot one thing... by Duncan3 · · Score: 1

    Well obviously you would use a TARDIS, which makes it more like 100%.

    --
    - Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
    1. Re:Forgot one thing... by FallOfDay · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Conquer time travel & the requisite transport method, then the ability to colonise the Universe will be instantaneous. None of this 4% in 10bn years non-sense! The author needs to move their brain up a dimension. What will be difficult is finding the people to populate & explore such an ultra-gigantic area of space & time. That said, if we have time travel (& suitable medical technology), we could always go back & resurrect the 'dead' for our cause (so long as we don't appear to interfere with known history)!

  3. I should hope so... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We will be in a lot of trouble if the Cylons find us first.

    1. Re:I should hope so... by Homr+Zodyssey · · Score: 3, Informative

      Silly! They aren't aliens. They are man-made robots.

    2. Re:I should hope so... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
      Well, it seems the Cylons are already running the U.S. Government, and it would explain the NSA spying.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:I should hope so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the old series they were made by lizard people.

    4. Re:I should hope so... by bigmauler · · Score: 2, Funny

      just change the article to "hot Cylon poon hasn't found us yet."

    5. Re:I should hope so... by saigon_from_europe · · Score: 1

      In the original book they are aliens, not man-made robots.

      --
      No sig today.
    6. Re:I should hope so... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > We will be in a lot of trouble if the Cylons find us first.

      Are there any books (no doubt series by now) where humans discover aliens first, and they're nasty pieces of work we want to hide from? And don't give me that one with the five Patricia clones. I have the sequel of that one and it's boring.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:I should hope so... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I, for one, have little problem with swarms of Xena clones.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    8. Re:I should hope so... by BadERA · · Score: 1

      I'd be more about Grace Park I think ... or a menage a all of the Cylon femmes ...

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    9. Re:I should hope so... by syousef · · Score: 1

      We will be in a lot of trouble if the Cylons find us first.

      Which Cyclons? The 70s tin cans or the 00s babywatch starlets?

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    10. Re:I should hope so... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pandora's Star by Peter F. Hamilton

    11. Re:I should hope so... by Xenoliths · · Score: 1

      Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.

      http://www.amazon.com/Mote-Gods-Eye-Larry-Niven/dp /0671741926/sr=8-1/qid=1169177193/ref=pd_bbs_1/103 -6417068-1378226?ie=UTF8&s=books

      One of the more thought provoking sci-fi books I've read.

    12. Re:I should hope so... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Interesting isn't it how lizard people make frequence appearances in great works of art. Maybe David Icke is right, and only a few brave script writers have managed to add warnings about the lizards into V and Battlestar Galactica before they were eaten.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  4. Uh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warp Drives D00d!

  5. That's assuming... by GillBates0 · · Score: 1

    I haven't RTFA (at work) but I'm guessing this is assuming that they haven't developed signals/travel faster than the speed of light.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
    1. Re:That's assuming... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think that this is assuming quite a bit. The age/size of the universe, the technologies that different alien life would have available, etc.

      Meaning, he is guessing completely and saying that this is how long 'humans' would take to do it.

    2. Re:That's assuming... by IgLou · · Score: 1

      I read some of it and the biggest assumption was that probes would travel at most 1/10 the speed of light.

      I think if you're going to go through the trouble of writing a paper like this it would be interesting to consider an FTL scenario as well. Say compare the numbers for 1/10c, c, and 10c. But then again, what would the realistic assumption be on speed?

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:That's assuming... by BadERA · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, it's almost as though you're quoting from my post that already existed at the time you hit reply ...

      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=217598 &cid=17668728

      *scratching head*

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    4. Re:That's assuming... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Worse than that- the researcher assumes:

      1. That they can't develop PROBES that travel faster than 1/10th the speed of light.
      2. That probes of this form that would keep running long enough would be so massively expensive that even the most ambitious race would only be able to build 8 of them (He does address this complaint, and also considers 200 probes instead of 8, and von Neuman machines instead of static probes, neither of which drop the figures below 4x10^6 years to explore a mere 4% of the Galaxy).
      3. He doesn't even consider non-material, photon-based probing methods, which would increase the rate of exploration by a factor of 10.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    5. Re:That's assuming... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      I read some of it and the biggest assumption was that probes would travel at most 1/10 the speed of light.

      Well there is the problem of fuel needed to accelerate, and decelerate if you want to stop/slow to look at something interesting. Perhaps a decent strategy would be to send fast movers out to scout, never stop/slow - accelerate only, and have them signal slow movers behind to investigate more interesting things.

    6. Re:That's assuming... by hjo3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      "photon-based probing methods"

      You mean looking at stuff through a telescope?

    7. Re:That's assuming... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More puzzlingly, he assumes these probes can repair themselves for and keep running for billions of years, but they can't self-replicate. Really? If the probe can repair every potential internal probem on its own, the capacity to self-replicate should come almost for free.

    8. Re:That's assuming... by IgLou · · Score: 1

      Truly, it was fluke. I started to comment on the GP before I read further down.

      --

      Oops, how did this get here?
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    9. Re:That's assuming... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's a rather passive one. Bouncing radar waves off of an object is a more active version, but basically the same thing.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    10. Re:That's assuming... by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      The problem with this type of theorizing is that they always base their assumptions on things that are unlikely to hold true by the time we actually start trying to do anything like this.

      It's like when IBM theorized that the future world market for computers was around a dozen units, back in the 40's and 50's...They had no conception of the evolution that was going to occur which would make things that they would have considered to be supercomputers, be required per student for college math classes, and fit comfortably in that same students back pocket.

      Likewise, the cost, endurance, propultion, and sensor capability of these hypothetical probes is based on current technology and understanding, and, even laying aside FTL, there is still a hell of a lot that can change.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    11. Re:That's assuming... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      required per student for college math classes, and fit comfortably in that same students back pocket.

      I try not to keep calculators in my back pocket. Shards of shattered LCD screens hurt when embedded in one's ass.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    12. Re:That's assuming... by shashark · · Score: 1

      The value c/10 makes sense. It can't be near C or 90% of C - because of this. If anything, either we will totally breach C by a factor of 2 , or will max out at c/10 or thereabouts.

      I think the writer is assuming that we won't be able to breach C physically (as per current phyical laws) - which is understandable. Because if you're not talking physics, you're basically saying anything is possible - and even god could exist.

    13. Re:That's assuming... by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      I like the article containing that graph. Especially the part comparing FTL to dividing by zero.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    14. Re:That's assuming... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Assuming that Aliens that travel between star systems are smarter than us is proably a good starting point.

      So yeah, scouts that don't "decellerate" and find likely places. 1/2 Lights speed is not far fetched.
      Slower robots that investigate likely places.
      Actual living aliens that investigate interesting places.
      Maybe FTL drives or even punching through space/time in a way we don't know about yet.

      And maybe they will have discovered Radio. We can't rule that out.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    15. Re:That's assuming... by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that graph looks like just about anything up to 85% is pretty doable- after that you hit the wall. Double isn't hard- infinity is VERY hard.....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re:That's assuming... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Yeah but "Photon-based" sounds way cooler than "electromagnetic spectrum analysis."

      >>But seriously;
      I think it's very likely, that we will find some "tell" in the light spectrum, that shows life based systems are growing on a given planet. Certain bands of light will probably be absorbed by certain life processes.

      I'm sure that we are very close to having a "life detector." Life has an impact on the environment, so that has to be detectable in some way.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    17. Re:That's assuming... by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Not quite. The probe will be probably traveling through vast amounts of empty space, and won't quite have materials at hand to replicate at will. So your best best would be to engineer a probe that won't die. It,s probably quite easy in space, because there will be little to no interaction with other bodies. So it can probably last quite long.

      I think what he is doing is trying to give a 'best case' scenario, which is pretty much unattainable, to prove a point. So, even if we could make such a robot, which we can't, it would still be impossible.

    18. Re:That's assuming... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You haven't RTFA -- his probes don't slow down, but whiz right on by. He estimates that slowing down at each star would simply double the time needed, which is reasonable.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:That's assuming... by mibus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm sure that we are very close to having a "life detector." Life has an impact on the environment, so that has to be detectable in some way.


      You could look for an oxygen/carbon-dioxide atmosphere, but then you're just making assumptions about what sort of life you're looking for...
    20. Re:That's assuming... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      read some of it and the biggest assumption was that probes would travel at most 1/10 the speed of light.

      That's reasonable. But the real reason it takes billions of years is his plan is only to build EIGHT probes. So of course to investigate billions of stars will take forever.

      At the end of TFA he discusses the suggestions for von Neumann probes; i.e. that land on suitable planets or moons and reproduce. He dismisses these as "dangerous", because they'd have to be at least as intelligent as humans. Obviously he's thinking of the Berserkers...

    21. Re:That's assuming... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      I think the writer is assuming that we won't be able to breach C physically (as per current phyical laws) - which is understandable.

      And the Fermi Paradox is even stronger is FTL is possible. In that case, we would expect to have been colonised millions of years ago.

    22. Re:That's assuming... by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about activities that occur because some organized life form is consuming resources.
      Yes you would be assuming something in your search -- so Aliens that were earth-like would be more likely to find us than non carbon-based organisms.

      On earth we've found sulfer-based, anarobic, and other types of life. We are surmising Silicon and there are even theories of Hydrogen-peroxide based life on Mars. With more examples of life forms, we might find some more general assumptions we can make.

      I'm not talking about looking for Water-rich Nitrogen planets like earth. There will probably be narrow bands of absorbed radiation that are common to certain planets with life on them. After we find a few planets with life -- we too will probably be able to find life more accurately with a telescope -- at least narrow the search to much more likely planets.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    23. Re:That's assuming... by usmc1944 · · Score: 1

      This too has already been address by Stephen Baxter (google him or search on amazon for his books), Rasmus Bjoerk idea is nothing new and very limited too.

  6. Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why 1/10th c? Why not 99% of c? Why not faster than c? Granted faster than light travel is nothing more than theory and dreams at this point, but this article makes the assumption that other civilizations have not progressed in the field of physics any faster nor further than we ourselves have, to date.

    --
    I am, therefore you think.
    1. Re:Based on poor assumptions by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, imagine a civilization that, having discovered enlightenment, actually embraced it and dedicated their industrial base to further it, instead of shuffling it off to the minor specialists who they then make beg for funding, typically by militarizing their research.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 5, Funny

      Psssh, enough of that hippie dudley do-right love and flowers attitude, that will get you nowhere in this life.

      (That said, I totally agree with you.)

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    3. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Marlow+the+Irelander · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nasa's current Cassini mission to Saturn is plodding along at 32km a second

      c/10 is 30,000km/s. The article makes the assumption that alien civilizations have advanced enough that their spaceships are 1,000 times faster than ours - not unreasonable.

    4. Re:Based on poor assumptions by teslar · · Score: 4, Informative
      Why 1/10th c? Why not 99% of c? Why not faster than c?
      You're still thinking Star Trek when you should be thinking Stargate.
      1. Obtain a good enough understanding of space-time to create wormholes to any destination you want.
      2. Make a list of all destinations you are aware of.
      3. Send a probe to all of them, evaluate each destination and scan for more destinations from there.
      4. Go to step 2.
      Space ships are just such a small-planet-with-water way of thinking.
    5. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also, assuming they use some kind of rocket technology (that is, technology that shoots stuff out one side to propel the vehicle in the other), 1/10 c is much more realistic than something approaching c. Assuming a technology that has 100 times the specific impulse as our current vehicles (the best ion thrusters get ~4500 s,) I get using the rocket equation that the initial mass to move 1 ton of cargo is:

      1/10 c: 3.263e29 tons .99 c: 1.534e292 tons

      Even then this seems absolutely ridiculous. If you used a matter/antimatter reaction so that your propellant was pure electromagnetic radiation (thus your exit velocity is c), you'd get these results

      1/10 c: 1.105 tons .99 c: 2.69 tons

      Of course, these are not adjusted for relativity, since I don't know any simple equations to do that. I would imagine (as a wild-ass guess) that the 1/10 c estimates are close, but the .99 c results are off by thousands of orders of magnitude.

      Basically all I'm saying is that 1/10 c seems fairly reasonable. It's not feasible given our current technology, but its within reason. If you start looking at things like space-time warpage, then we have no idea on any usage or capabilities, so any kind of theory based on it gets even further and further from reality.

      By the way, I am a rocket scientist, but only a student, and not a physicist at all, only an interested amateur.

    6. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 1

      But the bad assumption remains: rocket technology. Like I said, who's to say they haven't gone further with physics, or pursued a different, or completely unthought-of (to us) means of travel?

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    7. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 1

      Wormhole travel is FTL, aka faster than c ... falls in the same class. I've been a fan of wormholes for 15 years or so now, since first really reading about them as a kid -- not just hearing the name bandied about in sci fi shows and movies ... exotic matter, vacuum energy, the possibilities fascinate me. I've also been an SG fan since the movie.

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    8. Re:Based on poor assumptions by SpectreHiro · · Score: 1

      Yeah, imagine a civilization that, having discovered enlightenment, actually embraced it and dedicated their industrial base to further it, instead of shuffling it off to the minor specialists who they then make beg for funding, typically by militarizing their research. Hot damn! I always thought Enlightenment was a pretty spiffy window manager but I didn't know it would allow us to explore the stars. Rock on Rasterman -- Let's get that man some funding!
      --
      You can't win, Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.
    9. Re:Based on poor assumptions by gobbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the bad assumption remains: rocket technology. Like I said, who's to say they haven't gone further with physics, or pursued a different, or completely unthought-of (to us) means of travel?

      No kidding. "If we put a thousand horses on a carriage, it still won't be fast enough to lift from the ground. But if we could discover the rumoured winged horse, we can do it."

      Something tells me that we're a couple of paradigms away from comprehending galactic distances as attainable. Propellant propulsion systems are to interstellar travel what horses are to flight.

    10. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because he's trying to answer the Fermi Paradox, which does not assume that near-c or past-c travel is practical or possible.

    11. Re:Based on poor assumptions by WindowsIsEvil · · Score: 0

      It is obviously a Microsoft conspiracy to perpetuate their monopoly and keep Linux down.

    12. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      Agreed, to some extent. Yes, we all hope theres something better than rocket technology. But right now theres nothing rigorously shown to be theoretical possible even. Certainly there are some promising ideas, but nothing for sure.

      All I'm really saying is that 1/10 c seems reasonable for a highly advanced species, whether its done with advanced rocketry or something else entirely. Also you could make an argument similar to the Fermi Paradox (if they're out there exploring how come we havent met them yet), not necessarily that they're not there, but that something like this 1/10 c number is reasonable because if it were higher we'd likely have made contact by now.

    13. Re:Based on poor assumptions by inviolet · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Also, assuming they use some kind of rocket technology (that is, technology that shoots stuff out one side to propel the vehicle in the other), 1/10 c is much more realistic than something approaching c. Assuming a technology that has 100 times the specific impulse as our current vehicles (the best ion thrusters get ~4500 s,) I get using the rocket equation that the initial mass to move 1 ton of cargo is [...]

      Why do you assume that any sane civilization would send out macro-sized probes?

      Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c.

      That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft. If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    14. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      "something like this 1/10 c number is reasonable because if it were higher we'd likely have made contact by now."

      That logic makes the original argument, we cannot have met them because we would have met them if we did.

    15. Re:Based on poor assumptions by GR8_GRM_RPR · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Great to see minds looking in the right directions. Hope you don't mind the refinery or any of our moon bases on luna. Look for more in mexico next year around August. Bye for now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCEU2KFLFAk P.S. The disk image is in binary spanish. We don't like hoaxers. We don't like giving gifts. We are going to be here for a very long time. You've already done considerable harm to your world without our help.

      --
      Have Tardis, will travel.
    16. Re:Based on poor assumptions by znaps · · Score: 1

      Not unreasonable, but completely arbitrary. I fail to see how anyone can draw any useful conclusions from this study.

    17. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic."

      is equivalent to "If they are not microscopic, then they are not UFOs". I think that kind of limits the definition of Unidentified Flying Objects. I laugh when people make uneducated guesses about the source of the UFO, not because of my preconceived notion about the nature of UFOs. Incidentally, I'd be very interested in the technology that allows a microscopic probe to analyze its surroundings, and then return data light-years across the galaxy without inhabitants taking notice.

    18. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. We have working Ion drives, which we're working on improving further. They're already in use on some probes, so it's not far fetched at all to think that spacecraft we will use it in the future. They'd easily allow you to accelerate to speeds approaching c. Perhaps not 99% but far more than 10%.

    19. Re:Based on poor assumptions by rudresha · · Score: 0

      5. ? 6. Profit!

    20. Re:Based on poor assumptions by dascandy · · Score: 1

      Theory of relativity tells that you can go faster than the speed of light to your perception - you can even go somewhere 100 light years away and come back without dying - you'll just have aged a lot less than the equivalent people on earth so you'll have to explain your findings to the great-great-great-great-grandchildren of your ex-wife who reported you missing. In some awkward form of inglis that you don't know since you've been away 175 years or so.

    21. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 1

      WTF is "enlightenment" and what is it good for?

      Seriously... everything I've heard about "enlightenment" is paramount to "coming to the conclusion that giving up on life is acceptable". You can't accomplish much if you give up, now can you?

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
    22. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, Obtain a Good enough understanding of Magic Pixie Dust to instantly transport yourself where you want.

    23. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Yeah, us Hippies and our Moral Relativism.

      People have to be able to afford good treatment -- we devalue peace by trying to make it free. Just work with me, I'm trying to make sense of the Corporate American Christian.

      >> IN other words, I totally agree with the two parent posts.

      I think I might make that quote me new sig -- what do you think?

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    24. Re:Based on poor assumptions by einnar2000 · · Score: 1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea r_propulsion)

      You mention rocket propulsion in your post. Scientists that worked on the Orion Project "way back when" had abandoned that as potential propulsion for long distances due to efficiency.

      From the wiki article :

      The Orion nuclear pulse rocket design has extremely high performance. Orion nuclear pulse rockets using nuclear fission type pulse units were originally intended for use on interplanetary space flights. Orion rockets using nuclear fusion pulse units were intended for use on interstellar space flights.

      The top cruise velocity that can be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c). An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light.

      Missions that were designed for an Orion vehicle in the original project included single stage (i.e., directly from Earth's surface) to Mars and back, and a trip to one of the moons of Saturn.

      Nuclear fission pulse unit powered Orions could provide a fast, economical interplanetary transportation with useful human crewed payloads of gargantuan mass.

      Orion's technology is also one of very few interstellar space drives that could be constructed with known technology. Orion is the ideal method of propelling a multi-generational starship such as an interstellar ark to the stars at velocities of up to 10% of the velocity of light.

      Even at 0.1c, Orion thermonuclear starships will require a flight time of 44 years to reach Proxima Centauri, the nearest star. An Orion starship would require 100 years to travel 10 light years, or 500 years to travel 50 light years. The late astronomer Carl Sagan suggested that this would be an excellent use for current stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
    25. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      One big assumption is that you have to use a propellant. Action and re-action. Even ion drives with anti-matter power are going to be "primitive" for a space-faring race.

      We only know about expelling a mass to move another mass in the opposite direction -- the scientific equivalent of "squirting" your way around. If this were the only way to travel, you'd have to use up whole stars to make intergalactic travel feasible. Human culture would not put up with a thousand generations to reach a star system, to then pioneer and try and recreate the home planet. So in this "slow travel" scenario, you are basically talking about terraforming robots preceding pioneers.

      Somehow, I could only imagine that in response to people escaping a society that had totally fallen into tyranny. It wouldn't be sustained long term. And if you could not keep the peace on a home planet, such that people would want to travel through space for generations -- you couldn't keep the peace on a space ship. Other than large-brained shellfish, who could stay sane on that voyage? Of course I am anthropomorphising, but really, wouldn't any advanced species share curiosity -- and doesn't that preclude spending all your time in one spot? So the pioneers would have to be frozen for long voyages.

      And if all "slow-travel" colonies are frozen for transport, you remove some of the assumed limitations of speed.

      If you had a monopole, or traversed using other properties of physics, it would make things more feasible. And I am pretty sure that FTL will one day be achieved -- because I don't think God would want us to be so bored as spending 1,000 years to visit the next planet.

      So my point is, that I think it would either be faster than 1/10th C, or culturally, it could not be supported by an advanced race. By the time any colony could reach a useful planet and set up a base -- the home planet has progressed enough to turn them into a cultural back-water. Assuming curiosity, a need to diversify, and competition -- which is kind of a prerequisite for hurtling off into space in the first place.

      Von Neumann machines are also problematic. A machine advanced enough to build more of itself is a potential threat to anything out there. How does it deal with the unknown? There was a really good sci-fi book I once read about the human race getting wiped out by some other races von-Neumann machines. We find out later that they are Universally out-lawed, and that other alien races have banded together to wipe out any race that uses them.

      So, it could be likely that exploration is slower or faster than this model. There isn't any observed phenomena to work from.

      And by simply assuming a continuing geometric growth rate of knowledge among humans -- even predicting what our abilities are in a thousand years is total speculation.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    26. Re:Based on poor assumptions by manifoldronin · · Score: 1
      1. Obtain a good enough understanding of space-time to create wormholes to any destination you want.
      I would work towards "8. Profit!" from here instead of that boring infinite loop you got. 8-)
      --
      Tyranny isn't the worst enemy of a democracy. Cynicism is.
    27. Re:Based on poor assumptions by G00F · · Score: 1

      Yes yes, feeding a troll and all.

      But Enlightenment, as in the age of enlightenment. A simple summary of what the Enlightenment was: is a period of time from about 1600-1800 where started questioning things arround us, learned to understand them, and made things better.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    28. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      >> And that is assuming any government would inform us if we met aliens. From observing how our government continually lies to us about getting into war (not just this one -- it has always happened); I would assume that if we had contacted aliens, we would not be informed until the secret could no longer be kept. I don't really speculate about UFOs and stuff -- I just know that the government would respond to us exactly as they do now if it were true, and if it weren't true.

      So this guy doesn't know beans. I should write a book as well; "I don't know beans, and here is the book to prove it."

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    29. Re:Based on poor assumptions by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Yes, we all hope theres something better than rocket technology. But right now theres nothing rigorously shown to be theoretical possible even.

      Nonsense. Two contenders: lightsails (and relatives like starwisp, etc), and magsails. The former probably requires a launching laser to get to reasonable speed. The latter may not be as fast (unless you're in a region of strong galactic magnetic field) but are more maneuverable.

      Of course there's the Alcubierre-van den Broek warp bubble for FTL (and probably doesn't fit your definition of "rigorously"), but so far that still requires at least the energy equivalent of -10kg mass (yes, that's a negative sign) to create, and we're not sure just how to apply that energy if we had it.

      --
      -- Alastair
    30. Re:Based on poor assumptions by AJWM · · Score: 1

      PS. Of course technically, even a Bussard ramjet (aka ramscoop) is "rocket" technology in that it gets its thrust by pushing matter out the back at high speed, so I'll give you that.

      --
      -- Alastair
    31. Re:Based on poor assumptions by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      Wormhole travel is not FTL. You are entering a hole in spacetime and emerging out of another some distance away. At no point did you travel faster than c; regardless of how far the distance between the points is and the travel time.

    32. Re:Based on poor assumptions by StikyPad · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c. That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft.

      That's why *I* laugh when people think we haven't solved the issue of atomic abrasion. Teflon was named after our home planet, after all. Ha ha ha...

      Puny human!

    33. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      "I don't think God would want us to be so bored as spending 1,000 years to visit the next planet."

      If there's one thing that's clear, it's that if there is such a being then he doesn't really care much for our comfort.

      "There was a really good sci-fi book I once read about the human race getting wiped out by some other races von-Neumann machines. We find out later that they are Universally out-lawed, and that other alien races have banded together to wipe out any race that uses them."

      Greg Bear's Anvil of Stars and The Forge of God? There was supposed to be a movie being made out of at least one of those.

      As for your comment about self-replicating machines; I think the most desirable answer is obvious there; we don't send mere automated robot probes, we migrate ourselves into the machines and go ourselves. At least we shouldn't need to break physics to do that :)

    34. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Kittenman · · Score: 1
      Tut. You can't go faster than light. It's the way the universe is made.

      For FTL drives, warp drives, star drives, look under 'Science Fiction', not Science.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    35. Re:Based on poor assumptions by potat0man · · Score: 1

      That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft. If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic.

      Unless they sent the microscopic nanoprobes out hundreds or thousands of years ago followed by robotics and now they're past the exploration point and it's time to do some studying with a 'manned' expedition.

      Though there are likely plenty of other reasons to laugh at them so you're probably still ok.

    36. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Alsee · · Score: 3, Informative

      The article makes the assumption that alien civilizations have advanced enough that their spaceships are 1,000 times faster than ours - not unreasonable.

      No, it is quite unreasonable. The Cassini probe is going 32km a second (71,000mph / 115,000kph). That is more than a thousand times faster than the record less than a hundred years earlier.

      We pretty much already have the technological capability to get a small probe up to c/10. We have the knowlege and basic designs to do it... it is already "mere" enginering and $$$$ problem for us today. If we simply chose to allocate several gigabucks to do it, we could with absolute certainty get something up to c/10 within 10 to 20 years.

      Assuming our civilization doesn't implode in one way or another in the next few hundred years, getting well over c/10 is a certainty. The only uncertainty is whether the speed of light really is an inviolate limit, or whether some unimagined phyisics will have us exploring the universe way beyond the speed of light.

      But looking at his paper I see that the real problem with his figure isn't his c/10 speed limit, but his laughable assumptions and exploration strategy of tiny fixed number of probes zig-zaging between stars almost one at a time. Even with conservative assumptions.... assuming just 0.5c and an interstellar civilization manufacturing just one probe per year... and assuming a reasonable strategy... the entire Milky Way could be explored in just a few million years.

      With more reasonable assumptions, the entire exploration rapidly becomes light-speed limited. After the initial local exploration, an advanced technology civilization could mass produce replication-capable miniprobes or microprobes and use a maximized galactic search strategy. Send those probes out on a straight line courses directly to the various sectors of the galaxy... with the worst case probe taking between 150,000 years and 225,000 years to reach the opposite side of the galaxy. Within a handful of years the probe locates an uninhabited rock and sets up an automated factory to send out a few million miniprobes or microprobes, which scout all of the stars in that sector within about 20,000 years. Elapsed time: less than a quarter million years to get a probe to every star.

      And really you only need the tech and pay the $$$$ to make and launch *one* such replicator miniprobe. After that, the entire exploration proceeds automaticaly and "for free". We will probably have this technology within a hundred years. Some time within the next 10,000 years... hell lets call it some time in the next 100,000 years of civilization... someone can and will do somthing like this (if we are still around). Once anthing remotely like this gets started, it doesn't much matter how you tweak the assumptions. The most it does is add in a small multiplier factor to the timeline. It is almost inconceivable that we (assuming we are still around) will not have probed every star in the Milky Way within a million years from today.

      10,000 years or 50,000 years of technology and manufacturing is an insignifigant blip in the analysis. That technology level and time span means that a civilization can and will trivially produce the resourses needed to explore at a stbstantial fraction of the speed of light. Actual strategy and behavior only accounts for a small constant multiplier. the defining factor is the speed of light, and it locks down the final answer somewhere between 160,000 years and just a few million years. His result of needing 10 BILLION years to explore just 4% of the Milky Way is comical.

      The only real question is whether the speed of light really is inviolable. If that falls, then I say we only need between 100 and 1,000 years of technology and then we explore at close to the limit of whatever that new physics makes possible. If we can explore and *get answers* at far faster than the speed of light, then there is vastly more incentive to actually do so.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    37. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come now, you're bordering on religion at this point. First of all, we know for a fact that he is right and here's the biggest reason, we know for a fact that we're the highest level of intelligence in the universe. We also know for a fact that the universe itself is only about 12,000 years old. If we tossed financial issues aside and didn't really care about stripping earth of all its' resources for the purpose of improving interterrestrial relations with lower life forms we could exploit, and built the most advanced rockets and space travel systems we could using our current level of technology, we could never explore past pluto at this point in time. If some whack job were to use something like solar sails the size of jupiter, maybe we could get to alpha-centuri, but come on, who would make this anti-God technology, we after all are the chosen ones.

      On the other hand, if we sided with this whack-job scientist types and believe the universe were 10 billion years old, assumed that another civilization reached our level of technology 10,000 years ago, then progressed to be technically superior to us and maybe made a few thousand vehicles that could travel at either near light or faster than light speeds. We could also assume that they also came up with some method of determining inhabitability of other solar systems and focused on them. This would mean that if there is in fact another solar system within a few hundred light years from us, in reality, we would easily be one of their targets for exploration.

      Let's forget probability altogether, if they apparently were the idiots this guy makes them to be, then they would obviously explorer every single planet no matter how hot or cold they are. Also, they would explore every planet even if there were 1000km/hr surface winds, etc... But if we accounted for probability and that they might be smart enough to limit their search to planets with a 25% or better chance of hosting some form of life, then let's assume that instead of 4% searched, instead they would have searched 40% of all planets that might be able to host life, then in reality, there was a 40% chance they would have found us by now.

      The real problem here my friends is that people lack the ability to conceive obscenely large numbers. The other big problem is that people assume we're superior. I'd say that as long as we allow people like the quoted scientist to call themselves scientists, it's a pretty good sign that we have a long way to go.

    38. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Raenex · · Score: 1, Troll
      We will probably have this technology within a hundred years.

      Technology predictions a 100 years out are worth shit. Your assumptions are as bad as the article's.

    39. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you used a matter/antimatter reaction so that your propellant was pure electromagnetic radiation (thus your exit velocity is c), you'd get these results

      1/10 c: 1.105 tons .99 c: 2.69 tons

      Of course, these are not adjusted for relativity, since I don't know any simple equations to do that.


      This is one of those problems which is actually easy and fun to do in relativity. Anyway, here's the answer I found.

      Call "beta" the fraction of the speed of light.

      Then your craft needs to start with an initial mass of sqrt((1+beta)/(1-beta)) * 1 ton.

      So for v=0.1c, you need about 1.1 tons starting mass.

      For 0.99c, you need about 14.1 tons starting mass.

      Assuming you're using antimatter, you need 0.05 tons in the first case and 6.6 tons in the second case.

      -----

      And here's how I solve the problem using four-vectors.

      Let A be the initial state. B is the spacecraft in flight. C is the exhaust.

      A = B + C. We want to find mA = sqrt(A^2).

      B = (gamma*mB, beta*gamma*mB) where gamma = 1/sqrt(1-beta^2).

      C = (beta*gamma*mB, -beta*gamma*mB) by conservation of momentum.

      (B + C) = ((1+beta)*gamma*mB, 0) addition of 4-vectors

      A^2 = (B + C)^2 = mB^2 * (1 + beta)^2 / (1 - beta^2)

      A^2 = mB^2 * (1 + beta) / (1 - beta) that's just algebra

      mA = sqrt(A^2) = mA * sqrt((1+beta)/(1-beta)). the end

    40. Re:Based on poor assumptions by SEE · · Score: 1

      Well, Robert L. Forward claimed (Indistinguishable From Magic, p.24) that the optimum antimatter rocket design has a payload-to-propellant ratio of 1:4. In intrasystem applications, you use milligrams of antimatter to heat the four tons of hydrogen into a hot gas. In intersystem applications, you'd use kilograms of antimatter to heat the hydrogen to a plasma -- 300 kg of antimatter to 3.7 tons of hydrogen giving you a 0.5 c rocket after it spends eighteen days accelerating at 10 gee.

      The physics all work today, and the materials needed are not that much in advance of what we could churn out today, given enough money expended. It's not something we could build or afford today, of course, but it's the sort of thing that seems reasonable in the next few hundred years.

    41. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And all information is lost in the process of this energy exchange.

    42. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I could make something fly with 1000 horses - heck, I could probably do it with 10 horses.

      Just attach them to the tow cable of my (well 1/8 share!) ASW-19. Tow it up.

      No one said the horses had to be part of the flying object.

    43. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      faster than light travel is nothing more than theory

      You mispelled "not even".
    44. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any exploration that is to have a hope of finding anything has to be able to have probes that replicate given the chance. Exponentially is the only way to explore.

    45. Re:Based on poor assumptions by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      As opposed to before that time with the Ancient Greeks and the Library of Alexander etc ?

      We were questioning things and trying to understand them way before 1600!

    46. Re:Based on poor assumptions by ShadowBot · · Score: 1

      Within a handful of years the probe locates an uninhabited rock and sets up an automated factory to send out a few million miniprobes or microprobes You do realise that this sound like the blueprint for designing the Replicators (or even the Borg).
      --
      Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
    47. Re:Based on poor assumptions by GammaRay+Rob · · Score: 1
      Why 1/10th c? Why not 99% of c? Why not faster than c? Granted faster than light travel is nothing more than theory and dreams at this point, but this article makes the assumption that other civilizations have not progressed in the field of physics any faster nor further than we ourselves have, to date.
      You are excused for not knowing the fantastic amount of energy (in the form of consumables) required to even approach the 10% figure. Something like (off the top of my head, now) 10 times the weight of the entire probe will be needed to accelerate it to these speeds and then decelerate it at the far end. For every ten percentile closer to c you want to attain, you will need (roughly) ten times more propellant; a very real Zeno's paradox! This is pure physics; no Sci-Fi techniques need apply; since, if you assume magic, well, then anything's possible. In fact, the Fermi paradox tells us as much about the limitations of physics as anything else...

      Why, yes, I *am* a rocket scientist (actually, an astrophysicist).
      --
      This line no sig
    48. Re:Based on poor assumptions by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Interesting. But that still leaves the questions, where do you get the antimatter from? Must be incredibly difficult to get 5 tonnes of the stuff together without blowing youself to pieces in the process.

    49. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 1

      http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html# sec:ftlnotes

      6.1 A Few Notes On The Meaning of FTL Travel

      Before we begin the discussion, I wanted to go over the basic idea of what we mean by FTL travel. To do so, we should start by noting that most of space-time through which we would want to travel is fairly flat. For those who have not read Part III of this FAQ, that means that special relativity describes the space-time fairly well without having resorting to general relativity (which applies when a gravitational field is present). Sources of gravity are few and far between, and even if you travel "close" to one, it would have to be a significant source of gravity in order to destroy our flat space-time approximation. Now, some FTL travel concepts we consider will involve using certain areas of space-time which are not flat (and I will go over them when we get there); however, the important thing for us is that all around these non-flat areas, the space-time can be approximated fairly well as being flat.

      Thus, for our purposes, we can use the following to describe FTL travel. Consider some observer traveling from point A to point B. At the same time this observer leaves A, a light beam is sent out towards the destination, B. This light travels in the area of fairly flat space-time outside of any effects that might be caused by the method our observer uses to travel from A to B. If the observer ends up at B in time to see the light beam arrive, then the observer is said to have traveled "faster than light".

      Notice that with this definition we don't care where the observer is when he or she does the traveling. Also, if some space-time distortion is used to drive the ship, then even if the ship itself doesn't move faster than light within that distortion, the ship still travels faster than the light which is going through the normal, flat space-time that is not effected by the ship's FTL drive. Thus, this ship still fits our definition of FTL travel.

      So, with this basic definition in mind, let's take a look at the problems involved with FTL Travel. /quote

      cliff's notes: Wormholes -- non-localized FTL travel.

      http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    50. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 1

      That's pretty narrow minded. A thousand years ago people would tell you a metal box couldn't show people talking to or at you, either. Several thousand years before that, people would tell you you couldn't have a "metal" box, whatever that "metal" stuff is. In a few hundred years, modern society will be laughing at you, the same way we laugh at peoples who believed their god threw lightning bolts and lived on a mountain top, the same way they probably laughed at the mindset pervasive prior to their own time, a la snake worship.

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    51. Re:Based on poor assumptions by BadERA · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm pretty familiar with the massive amount of energy required. You're excused for not being literate and thoughtful enough to think outside the box and understand that our own progress in physics may in absolutely no way nor fashion represent the achievements of another civilization.

      No, I'm not a rocket scientist nor an astrophysicist, just a software engineer with an open mind that doesn't limit itself to think that humanity is the pinnacle of ANYTHING. I've been reading Asimov and Sagan and Clarke and that whole cabal for nearly 20 years, while I may not do the math, I've certainly cleaned the kitchen sink.

      --
      I am, therefore you think.
    52. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am a strong believer in Einstein, and faster than the speed of light (SOL) is just not attainable in this Universe; meaning who knows where you would end up if you succeed ... and in what state? Probbably mulch. I am ready to accept using some sort of device (gate type) to bend space/time. But you still need to get there to deliver the device the first time.

      As for 99% of SOL, well it brings numerous questions:
      - To attain 99% the speed of light you need the energy of a sun's lifetime, depending on the mass to accelerate (and slow down?)
      - A shield is also an absolute necesity. And not just for the average H atom per cubic kilometer, a big chunk of rock might be anywhere (suns do explodes with nasty side effects)
      - How to cope with time dilation? You get 25 Million light years away in 25.5 Million years, but 2 Billion years actually passed on the home planet (see "Forever War" for a fun read). Then you still have to report back results assuming automated probes.
      - You better have real good scanning devices; cause you will zip thru the solar system in a minutes, slowing down will bring your average speed down a lot and cost even more E.
      - Then you still need to "turn" as the suns in the galaxy are not conveniently aligned. More E needed.

      And that's thinking about it 2 minutes.

      Is it really useful to reply a post 2 days after the main thread?

    53. Re:Based on poor assumptions by MyNymWasTaken · · Score: 1

      ahhh... The joy of semantics.

    54. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Is it really useful to reply a post 2 days after the main thread?

      I read it. Thanks for your points, although I wish someone would refute them :)

    55. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - How to cope with time dilation? You get 25 Million light years away in 25.5 Million years, but 2 Billion years actually passed on the home planet (see "Forever War" for a fun read).

      Bollocks. That's not how time dilation works, 25.5 million years is what passes on the home planet, only about 3.5 million years for the traveller.

      Is it really useful to reply a post 2 days after the main thread?

      Not really. But who cares.

    56. Re:Based on poor assumptions by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      We pretty much already have the technological capability to get a small probe up to c/10. We have the knowlege and basic designs to do it... it is already "mere" enginering and $$$$ problem for us today. If we simply chose to allocate several gigabucks to do it, we could with absolute certainty get something up to c/10 within 10 to 20 years.

      Please do speculate further. I do know that those kinds of speeds are achieved already in particle accelerators, but larger stuff? Heck, I don't know if it would be possible to keep a probe on a circular track with magnets for acceleration up to near those speeds. And apart from that kind of acceleration, you'd need to strap on all the energy on the probe itself. And in any case, the probe would need a similar amount of energy to *stop* at a system (that would need to be carried by the probe anyway).

      Nuclear energy might do it if we would find a way to transform all of it to kinetic energy. AFAIK that's not possible. Please do tell if you know a way.

    57. Re:Based on poor assumptions by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      Nanoscale or even microscale probes would completely change the economics of space exploration. And they would avoid the very serious problem of atomic abrasion that occurs at and above 0.1c.

      Please present your calculations on how big antennas these probes would need to communicate back any findings.

    58. Re:Based on poor assumptions by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I do know that those kinds of speeds are achieved already in particle accelerators

      Particle accelerators operate at up to .999999999998c for electrons and positrons, around .99999999c for protons, and almost as high for ions.

      The fastest probe created by man hit c/4400, the Helios spacecraft, and they hadn't even designed it for speed at all. That was simply the speed involved for the solarsystem course they happened to want.

      c/10 is obviously much faster than c/4400, but as I said they made no special effort for speed. At least two different short-term-buildable c/10 design approaches are known. One way is very light probe powered by a massive space-based beamed energy laser/maser - you *don't* strap the mega-massive energy system onto the probe at all. The other is nuclear pulse drive... a large ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs. The original nuclear pulse designs actually date back to the 1950's with the Orion project... but there is now a far better Medusa nuclear pulse design. You can see the Medusa design on the Wikipedia page for Nuclear_pulse_propulsion. (There are other "less drastic" nuclear energy approches rather than detonating nuclear bombs, but the other approaches still need more science work to acheive, and therfore I do not mention them here.)

      Neither of those two approaches require any "new science". The enginering for building either of those is a huge project, but absolutely doable within a decade or two if we had a seriously dedicated multigigabucks global will to do it.

      in any case, the probe would need a similar amount of energy to *stop* at a system

      Actually I was making no assumptions about stopping. I was simply stating that we could currently initiate a c/10 probe, and I had specifically considered the option of a full speed fly-by local scan and then swinging by the star for a completely free gravity course correction to head off to another star farther away.

      That said, a nuclear pulse drive would have no problem turning around and thrusting to a stop. A light probe would have a harder time stopping, but it is still possible using beamed power and/or solar sail breaking against the destination starlight and solar wind. However the light probe would be unable to then re-launch to another system without a massive beamed energy station in that system. But again, I was merely pointing out that we basically already have the capacity to get probes up to c/10. I was not claiming we *currently* have the capacity to seriously implement an extended exploration plan. We currently have the tech to hit that kind of speed and to realistically send 1-shot probes to the local stars if we really had the will to spend the gigabucks on it. One or two hundred years of new science and new technology will quickly make those figures and those assumptions comically quaint. We went from less than 70mph to over 70,000mph in less than a hundred years.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    59. Re:Based on poor assumptions by inviolet · · Score: 1
      Please present your calculations on how big antennas these probes would need to communicate back any findings.

      Instructions for spacegoing nanoprobes:

      1. Make a profound interstellar discovery.
      2. Clone yourself, and tell the clones to clone themselves, and so on, until there are a quadrillion of you.
      3. Line yourselves up in space, with each nanoprobe joining its external antenna couplings to the nanoprobes adjacent to it.
      4. Generate power and charge up your internal centripetal storage batteries to maximum charge.
      5. Use the combined meta-antenna to transmit a single petawatt pulse back towards the motherworld.
      6. Separate and go your separate ways.
      7. Profit !!

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  7. Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sheesh, talk about "proof by lack of imagination." This is supposed to answer the Fermi Paradox?

    You can't explore a galaxy with a handful of probes. 72 probes??? First of all, if you're going to do it that way, you'd create hundreds of thousands of probes, if not millions of probes (mass production would reduce the cost). Second, you still probably wouldn't do it that way. You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.

    Not impressed by this guy's argument.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:Duh by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      Funny I thought the galaxy was 100k ish light years across. So it would take half of that if we started at the center and the probes moved at light speed. It would take the same half of that to get the final results back so the minimum time is 100k years, without going faster than light.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Duh by Gropo · · Score: 2, Funny
      u'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.
      Yes, and let's hope beyond all hope that once the probes arrive they don't require vast amounts of O and/or H2O to replicate themselves. And that they'll recognize Sol 3 as a planet fostering 'advanced' life.
      --
      I hate Grammar Nazi's
    3. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "First of all, if you're going to do it that way, you'd create hundreds of thousands of probes, if not millions of probes"

      Not if your leader hamstrung the budget of your space agency......

    4. Re:Duh by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're right, this guy hasn't thought things through. He rejects self-replicating probes because they'd compete with the original explorers. I think that's a lame argument, but let's accept it. Even human colonies spreading out from Earth, and moving onto new stars every generation or two (and sending out some non-self-repicating probes while they're at it), would explore the galaxy far faster than these probes. If humans survive the next century or two I'm sure they'll explore the galaxy in person far faster than this unambitious probe idea.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:Duh by isomeme · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.

      Bingo. As usual, Wikipedia has a good article on the topic.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    6. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Funny I thought the galaxy was 100k ish light years across. So it would take half of that if we started at the center and the probes moved at light speed. It would take the same half of that to get the final results back so the minimum time is 100k years, without going faster than light.

      The galaxy is 30,000 light years across. I actually thought of that after I posted, but I figured "thousands" covers everything up to a million. :)

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    7. Re:Duh by debrain · · Score: 1

      You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes

      I remember some giant bags of gas in Star Control II who did just that. It was a bad move on their part.

    8. Re:Duh by Darthmalt · · Score: 1

      Plus lets not forget that there is also the possibility that these aliens aren't that far away and got lucky. Or perhaps they aren't dissimilar from us figured out which planets are most likely to have life like theirs and checked those first.

    9. Re:Duh by myowntrueself · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't explore a galaxy with a handful of probes. 72 probes???
      Not impressed by this guy's argument.

      He is probably just assuming that the aliens have a pretty much exact parallel to NASA.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    10. Re:Duh by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 3, Insightful
      you'd create hundreds of thousands of probes, if not millions of probes..You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.

      Uh-huh. And how many self-replicating probes traveling at .1 c have you developed?

      The fact that we can imagine self-replicating interstellar probes doesn't mean they are practical or possible.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    11. Re:Duh by muellerr1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I tend to agree. Think about it this way: how much of *our* resources are we currently using to explore the entire galaxy? And how much are we likely to in the future? The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system. The costs of sending crap into deep space will probably outweigh the benefits of mineral riches for far into the future, despite Ridley Scott's imagination. Unless there are aliens within a few hundred light years of us (which at this point is a vanishing probability given that we've found under 200 exoplanets within 200 parsecs) we won't find any aliens -- and they won't find us, either.

    12. Re:Duh by div_2n · · Score: 1

      I would think any sufficiently intelligent civilization would first develop automated systems to scan for candidate planets. We're working on that now.

      Working with a list of candidate planets (as ours surely would be), an alien civilization could be much more efficient in their searching for other forms of intelligent life.

    13. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Uh-huh. And how many self-replicating probes traveling at .1 c have you developed?

      Hence my use of the phrase, "wait until you had the technology." No one is going to do this until they're so bored with their own solar system that it makes sense to tackle something of this magnitude.

      The fact that we can imagine self-replicating interstellar probes doesn't mean they are practical or possible.

      You're right, the whole idea of self-replication is clearly impossible.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    14. Re:Duh by turnipsatemybaby · · Score: 2, Funny

      Geez, that's a terrible idea! Last time anyone did that, a bumbling race grab a hold of one and reprogrammed it to replicate as its top priority over everything else! The result was that the probes were finding other races and then breaking them down into their component compounds with their lightning thingies!

    15. Re:Duh by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Funny
      You're right, this guy hasn't thought things through.


      Negative. I find your argument untenable. I am in agreement with the Danish monkey-being. Probabilities of non-human life spreading through the Galaxy and discovering primitive monkey-beings in Sol System are minimal. Probability is on the same order of probability of a F'narthag slime-weasel evolving wings and taking flight. It is also highly improbable that extraterrestrial beings would colonize the pathetic planet Earth and blend into the primitive monkey-being society. They would be forced to hide in internet discussion groups and the tech sector so that they are mistaken for geeks when they display lack of monkey-being social skills.

    16. Re:Duh by wanerious · · Score: 1
      The galaxy is 30,000 light years across.

      It's about 25,000-30,000 parsecs, which is close to 75,000-100,000 light years.

    17. Re:Duh by at_18 · · Score: 1

      The galaxy is 30,000 light years across.

      The grandparent post was right. It's 100,000 light years across.

    18. Re:Duh by zCyl · · Score: 1
      If humans survive the next century or two I'm sure they'll explore the galaxy in person far faster than this unambitious probe idea.

      Precisely. Even in an unambitious model, you could easily estimate a society that creates say, one probe for every 2 billion members of the society, and this would change the result from linear to exponential. It doesn't matter if it takes thousands of years for a colony to grow to full size, since this would happen many many times in billions of years.
    19. Re:Duh by Kelbear · · Score: 1

      (spoilers)
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slylandro

      For those who don't remember the reference. And if you haven't played it, you should just bypass the link entirely for this one:

      http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

      Play the full game for free, legally.

    20. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While self-replicating probes aren't currently possible, they are definitely feasible. Unlike, say, faster-than-light travel or true AI, there's no real scientific barriers to overcome. It's just a matter of time and technology.

      We are already capable of designing spaceships that can reach ~0.1c, and have been since the 60's. See
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea r_propulsion)

    21. Re:Duh by Surt · · Score: 1

      Didn't hurt them, and encouraged people to visit. Worked out pretty well I'd say.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    22. Re:Duh by lucifig · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well Darth Vader found Hoth with fewer probes than that and it only took him like 4 minutes.

      So I guess you are both wrong.

    23. Re:Duh by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      without going faster than light.

      It's no wonder you humans never seem to get anywhere. Sublightspeed travel is so, well, primitive.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    24. Re:Duh by twitchingbug · · Score: 1

      Just curious if we have self replicating earth bound machines right now? I mean in the sense of something that's able to be automous, move around, and mine materials? We can worry about space travel later.

    25. Re:Duh by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      You can't explore a galaxy with a handful of probes. 72 probes??? First of all, if you're going to do it that way, you'd create hundreds of thousands of probes, if not millions of probes (mass production would reduce the cost). Second, you still probably wouldn't do it that way. You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.

      Not impressed by this guy's argument.


      Firstly, regardless of how many probes you have, how they communicate information back is still limited by the speed of light, at least a civilization of our present technology level. The radius of the milky way is somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000 light years. Assuming you start from galactic center, and travel at 1/10 LS, we are talking 600,000 years for two probes to reach each end, and another 60,000 for them to communicate back. IF someone is on one of the spiral arms, this figure doubles.

      Secondly something voyager sized is about 1000kg if I recall correctly, somewhere between 500kg and 1000. Do do something as you reccomend it, with self replication, we are talking the mass of several planets. Not to speak of fuel requirements, and the issue of not knowing exactly where one can get raw materials. Probally somewhere near the galactic unhabitable zone.

      The guy's argument is perfectly valid, the galaxy is big, getting from point a to point b is slow. The biggest issue is speed.

      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/interstellar.h tml
      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/images/f23.gif

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    26. Re:Duh by Surt · · Score: 1

      The answer is, not much. It's a vanishingly small return on a huge investment to explore the galaxy, especially when we've got bigger problems at home and so much raw material in our own solar system.

      That's an unprovable claim. The return on investment could be arbitrarily large.

      We could probably build a few hundred .1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    27. Re:Duh by lonechicken · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slylandro
      For those who don't remember the reference. And if you haven't played it, you should just bypass the link entirely for this one: Moreso than the non-carbon based races in the game, the idea of a race from "below" shrouded in mystery like the Orz always fascinated me. What the hell are they, where/what/when do they come from? It boggles my mind.
    28. Re:Duh by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Man, and I just used my last mod points too...

    29. Re:Duh by terjeber · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the aliens have an organization like NASA, and some Alien-Aliens drop by and donate Faster than Light technology and two space elevators to our Aliens, they still wouldn't be able to colonize their own solar system in 10 billion years.

    30. Re:Duh by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      Star Control 3 addressed this. Albeit poorly.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    31. Re:Duh by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Which propulsion technology did you have in mind? If it would be based on solar power (sails or an ion drive powered by solar cells), you would accelerate away from the source star(s) quickly enough to never reach that speed. Nuclear rockets (à la Orion) would require a lot of warheads for probes of any sensible size, taking into account the shielding needed to keep them going, despite their own and the surrounding radiation. Now, of course, we're in the somewhat special situation that we do have great amounts of already produced nuclear weapons which might be retooled, but I really think you are totally overoptimistic in that "budget".

    32. Re:Duh by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      How I learned to dread ever hearing, "WE COME IN PEACE".

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    33. Re:Duh by Louis+A.+J. · · Score: 1
      Unless there are aliens within a few hundred light years of us (which at this point is a vanishing probability given that we've found under 200 exoplanets within 200 parsecs) we won't find any aliens -- and they won't find us, either.
      Given the limits of the technology we are using to find planets,
      Given that we have been looking (with any hope of success) for a very short period of time,
      Given that we have already found 182 extra-solar planets,
      To assume that there are not a lot of planets simply because we can not see them yet is untenable.
      I take the success we have had to date to increase the probability, not reduce it.

      But maybe I'm just being glass-half-full today.
    34. Re:Duh by isomeme · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We do; you are an example of such a device. :)

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    35. Re:Duh by Hao+Wu · · Score: 1
      You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes,

      The human being is a self-replicating probe.

      I am too deep for you all.

      --
      I suggest you read Slashdot
    36. Re:Duh by Gogogoch · · Score: 1

      Raw materials? The galaxy is full of them.

    37. Re:Duh by isomeme · · Score: 1

      Absolutely right. And this design has worked very well for efficiently exploring the entire surface of the Earth.

      However, human bodies as they currently exist are not well suited to interstellar travel using any technique which seems likely to be practical. My view is that we will have to heavily modify ourselves, or let machines do the job, or some combination of those approaches.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    38. Re:Duh by Surt · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of ion drive. The main limiting factor in final velocity is propellant weight, which presumably we can lift to orbit sufficient quantities given the budget.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    39. Re:Duh by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you used self-replicating, small probes it would be easy to imagine them blasting themselves out of gigantic cannons to attain a decent percentage of the speed of light--slamming into another small, light planetoid and replicating.

      You could cover the milky way quite quickly I'd think. Covering the Universe is another matter...

      I'd assume it's more like the way we treat aboriginal people--at least until we discover some resource on their land. We tend to observe and try not to interfere. Turns out that if they are aware of us in any way, it changes their development, so I'm sure any aliens out there have figured out that they have to stay hidden from the culture they are observing...

      Heck, if it were me I'd even make a few people in strategic positions aware of my existence to ensure that governments kept the whole issue quiet by softly denying and ridiculing the possibility.

      I remember a movie where a proud native tribe had turned into a bunch of drunken idiots simply because of their ability to interact with an "advanced" society.

      You would feel useless, worthless and pathetic if you found that everything you'd ever done and ever would do means absolutely nothing in relation to what others could do. To know that no matter how good you and everyone you know got at using your most advanced weapon (the blowgun perhaps), that you couldn't even deter a slightly determined group with guns. To know that you could be wiped out in a second, and the only thing that keeps you alive is that you are somewhat entertaining to a few aliens, but that they could easily get bored and start treating you as cattle instead.

      How does the best cave-painter or master pot maker compare to our current artists and products except as novelties?

      We'd be utterly useless except as a distraction--and that's only as long as we don't know that all our art, products, wars and scheming for oil is absolutely pitiful and trite compared to what's being done all around us.

      It would be completely evil to destroy a younger culture by contacting it--we're learning that now (at lest we are kind of learning it--we'll let them be as long as there isn't money to be made off them). If "they" learned that before they left their planets, imagine how much further ahead of us they would be ethically by now...

    40. Re:Duh by rivetgeek · · Score: 1

      From the same wikipedia article: "Now known as Sagan's Response, it pointed out that in fact Tipler had underestimated the rate of replication, and that Von Neumann probes should have already started to consume most of the mass in the galaxy. Any intelligent race would therefore, Sagan and Newman reasoned, not design Von Neumann probes in the first place, and would try to destroy any Von Neumann probes found as soon as they were detected."

    41. Re:Duh by twitchingbug · · Score: 1

      Well, I tried, but somehow, I can't seem to self-replicate. I think I need to mine this strange exotic material.... what's the word? Girlfriend? :)

    42. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why 72 probes? Explore it with 42 and you could find the meaning of life along the way.

    43. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Any intelligent race would therefore, Sagan and Newman reasoned, not design Von Neumann probes in the first place, and would try to destroy any Von Neumann probes found as soon as they were detected.

      The problem is that Sagan's argument is a crock. He was a very intelligent guy, but had a blind spot when it came to intelligent life. He wanted it to be true too much.

      The answer to Sagan's argument is simple: It only takes one. If the life was teeming with intelligence, as he argued for again and again, one civilization would've either colonized the galaxy or at least sent out probes. That none of them did argues that we're unique in the galaxy.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    44. Re:Duh by identity0 · · Score: 1

      As usual, no one bothers to read even the linked page...

      The result is that with 8 probes, each with 8 subprobes ~4% of the Galaxy can be explored in 9.57*10^{9} years. Increasing the number of probes to 200, still with 8 subprobes each, reduces the exploration time to 4*10^{8} years.

      So, 400,000,000 for 4% of the galaxy.

      Second, I'm not sure that even self-replicating probes would solve the problem - you'd have to either: 1) slow down to the speed of whatever you're mining, then make probes and then send them out with enough fuel to speed back up, which is also going to take time, or 2) just try to send probes in ways that match speeds with some matter that happens to be going the same way you are. Either way, I'm not sure the economics (in terms of resources, not money) for self-replicating probes makes them any faster in the long run.

    45. Re:Duh by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      He rejects self-replicating probes because they'd compete with the original explorers. I think that's a lame argument What makes it lame? We're talking physical, analogue copies here. That means cumulative errors in every succeeding generation of machines, this means the machines will evolve. They will then compete for resources with anything else which occupies the same space. The same's true of human colonies btw... Look at America competing for oil resources with the EU.
      --
      Deleted
    46. Re:Duh by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine humanity restrained enough that over the next few million years of history, with a population of trillions spread over many planets with a multitude if different cultures, they never unleash self-reproducing machines on the universe? The question is moot anyway - the distinction between machine and organism will become pretty blurred over the next few millennia.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    47. Re:Duh by Nukenbar2 · · Score: 0

      I don't find this argument very convincing if you think in the scheme of 10 billion years. Think about how much more space research we have done in the last 40 years compared to the 3000 before that.

    48. Re:Duh by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      Raw materials? The galaxy is full of them.

      This is true, but you still have to get to them, and use them. I "imagine" a big ass probe could find a nice asteroid field and employ the use of a solar smelter, but imagine the time involved in smeltering 1000kg probes to seed the galaxy. This is not 1000 year project.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    49. Re:Duh by koreth · · Score: 1
      That none of them did argues that we're unique in the galaxy.

      Or that that the aliens' equivalent of NASA keeps getting its budget cut.

    50. Re:Duh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Yes, well that makes a pretty big VOLUME.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    51. Re:Duh by Buelldozer · · Score: 1

      I STRENUOUSLY disagree with your assertion.

      I am completely confident that given enough time and motivation that man can build anything that it can imagine.

    52. Re:Duh by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      Can you imagine humanity restrained enough that over the next few million years of history, with a population of trillions spread over many planets with a multitude if different cultures I think you mean species. But no, I don't and I fully expect that in the medium future, some species of humanity will end up in a war with what're essentially machines.

      The question is moot anyway - the distinction between machine and organism will become pretty blurred over the next few millennia. Mmm. in the very long term machines will be replaced by genetic modifications or biological organisms. Machines require too much energy; an organic (carbon based) being can always outcompete a metal/silicon being because it requires less energy. With the short term oil boom we're in, energy doesn't matter so much but in the very long term, it very much does.
      --
      Deleted
    53. Re:Duh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      We can't know "alien psychology" but I can throw out some assumptions-- here goes;

      In our culture, people have a hard time waiting 4 years for the next OS. As we advance, our cultural need for novelty increases. Either you support the expensive investigation of others stars or you don't. So, if you do, then the pressure to "find things" would be relatively quickly. You'd have many machines and perhaps duplicating machines (with some safeguards) or you wouldn't bother. So, it's either Fast Track, or not at all. Our current "slowness" in enthusiasm for science, is still at a breakneck pace when you consider that "The author" is talking about Millions of years. Sheesh.

      If you assume 1 in 10,000 planets creates life.
      1 in a 1,000 life-bearing planets might create intelligent life.
      And of those that would, you have only 1 in 10 that would be "ripe." I.e., don't blow themselves up first and all that.
      So, given all that ASSUMING, and the 200 Billion+ stars in our Galaxy, you have perhaps 2,000 planets with advanced, intelligent life.
      Spread them out however you want in this Galaxy, then create a sphere that propogates outward at the speed of light (for radio waves, or some detectible "life" radiation). In 100,000 years, the radiation from one of these planets will have reached the other end. But let's assume that you can only detect a direct signal for 10,000 light years. You still have too much opportunity for one of these groups to detect emissions from the other.

      Spread out a shiny fabric, about 1/10th the circumpherence of the moon (doable in a 100 years) and you have a detector for these sorts of weak and distant signals.

      So, without even leaving the solar system, it is likely that, starting from RIGHT NOW, in 10,000 to 20,000 years, our presence will be detected by one of the 2,000 other races. Even if there is one other advanced race in the whole galaxy, at most it would be 100,000 years from now. The author is assuming that someone has to visit your planet and basically trip over you.

      In 100,000 years how advanced will we be if we are still around? I think it is most likely, that the reason why we don't meet space-faring civilizations is that by the time they have the technology to travel between stars, it must be a universal wisdom that they are so far advanced from us that they would either meddle, manipulate or disrupt our society.

      More than likely, if there is other life out in the universe, it is as least relatively common (1 in 100,000 planets), and that if we have not had an advanced race stumble across us, we soon will (within a 1,000 years). Of course, if FTL drives are not possible -- it would take a long time to meet them. So, either SETI will detect some radio emissions, or we have God-like races that don't want to let the Neanderthals on earth get upset.

      I find it unlikely that the universe is empty. So we have had visitations by advanced aliens who chose not to upset us, or we soon will, but by civilizations that are just entering into using radio waves.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    54. Re:Duh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Negative, negative. You have inferior thought-processes.

      Even a Danish monkey-being as primitive as he is, must have been uplifted by alien genetic therapy on monkey-monkey-beings to even achieve the detestible level of current almost-monkey-being-ness. The likelyhood of a non-uplifted-mokey-being even making the pathetic gruntings of the Danish monkey-being, are as improbable as a F'narthag slime-weasel evolving wings and taking flight while still in it's crystaline egg sack.

      Please stop throwing your monkey-being analog of excrement against the internet appliance. That is all.

      More instructions will be beemed into your mind-sack from the Big Giant Head at the appropriate time. Until then, you should remember that you are merely a slightly more uplifted equivalent from the monkey-beings based upon genetic data taken from one of our digestive tract parasites, and are not based upon the glorious and pure genetic makeup of your advanced creators. You are not designed for such thought, but are sufficient to delude yourself that you are thinking.

      Stay with the original orders to deny global warming, so that we can eventually take over that cold ball of mud. It's like Siberia down there.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    55. Re:Duh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Also, the idea of connecting the internet with pipes is also impossible.

      Thus a plumber would conclude that nobody could create an internet.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    56. Re:Duh by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      200 Jupiter+ sized planets that is. Some of those produce radiation and are close to brown dwarf size.

      So, it is quite likely that most star systems have planets. Scientists aren't able to say that definitively until they can resolve objects as faint as earth-sized planets.

      I think it is likely that Most stars have 4 or more planets (depending upon the amount of older "star-stuff" necessary to create heavy elements). So 200 Billion stars means about 1 Trillion planets.

      I'm guessing history will prove me right.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    57. Re:Duh by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      That none of them did argues that we're unique in the galaxy.

      Or that we're just like everyone else and *no-one* has yet developed sufficient technology.

    58. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Or that we're just like everyone else and *no-one* has yet developed sufficient technology.

      Considering we're talking about billions of years of time, and our civilization has gone from stone to atomics in a handful of thousands of years, that's highly unlikely.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    59. Re:Duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you can build a self replicating probe, the best way to go about it is to do right where you are and sacrifice a planet. With the earth material alone, you could send a probe weighting 15e12 kg to each star in the milky way (yeah, I know, wrong composition, but the point stands). Then you send them all.

      Best case (ignoring the black hole there), you're in the middle of the galaxy, which is 90000 ly across. Assuming they go at .1c, you'll need at least 450000 years to fully explore the galaxy.

    60. Re:Duh by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Considering we're talking about billions of years of time, and our civilization has gone from stone to atomics in a handful of thousands of years, that's highly unlikely.

      Unless, of course, there's nothing particular strange about the timeline humanity is following and everyone else is on much the same one.

      When people assume "there's nothing special" about humanity, with regards to things like extraterrestrial life, they never seem to make the same assumption for all the other alien civilisations they think are out there.

    61. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, there's nothing particular strange about the timeline humanity is following and everyone else is on much the same one.

      Think about what you're saying. All the stars and all the planets have to form at exactly the same time (which we know is false), evolution follows EXACTLY the same timeline over BILLIONS of years, and EVERY race, without variation, comes to the same technological level within, what, a century of each other? Just for reference, a century is 0.00001% of a billion years. Pretty narrow target to hit.

      Does this sound absurd enough yet?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    62. Re:Duh by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      some species of humanity will end up in a war with what're essentially machines.
      When it happens, I suspect that both sides will be essentially machines. All this is, of course, fantasy (well, SF). But if someone's going to make predictions about the next billion years you can guarantee that the predictions will be wrong in ways that we can't even begin to imagine.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    63. Re:Duh by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      But if someone's going to make predictions about the next billion years you can guarantee that the predictions will be wrong in ways that we can't even begin to imagine. Sure, but look at it this way. Where are all the self replicating machines?
      --
      Deleted
    64. Re:Duh by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Think about what you're saying. All the stars and all the planets have to form at exactly the same time (which we know is false), evolution follows EXACTLY the same timeline over BILLIONS of years, and EVERY race, without variation, comes to the same technological level within, what, a century of each other? Just for reference, a century is 0.00001% of a billion years. Pretty narrow target to hit.

      What's this "century" rubbish ? You could hit within a few million years and still end up with the results we are observing.

      The sky is an awfully big place. We haven't looked at every part of it and we *certainly* haven't gone back and looked multiple times at all the places we've looked before. It's not _at all_ unreasonable to assume we simply haven't pointed our equipment in the right direction at the right time.

    65. Re:Duh by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Hence my use of the phrase, "wait until you had the technology."

      The problem is that you're blithely assuming the technology is not just possible but will inevitablly develop; "wait until you have the technology", like "wait until the sun comes up".

      You're right, the whole idea of self-replication is clearly impossible.

      Complex self-replicating biological entities function as part of an ecosystem that supports many of their needs. I don't have to make my own oxygen or my own amino acids. Assuming that complex artifical entities can be developed that are not supported by such an ecosystem - assuming not just that the can be, but inevitablly will be, developed - is silly.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    66. Re:Duh by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
      Where are all the self replicating machines?
      Presumably there aren't any in our neigbourhood. Maybe in some other galaxies, but not in ours.
      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    67. Re:Duh by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 1

      Just remember to make sure the "Initiate peaceful relationships with alien lifeforms" priority is higher than the "break resources down to component materials for replication" priority.

    68. Re:Duh by naoursla · · Score: 1

      That is why I believe the speed of light is a real limit to how fast you can travel through space. If FTL travel were possible then the entire universe would be overrun by self-replicating FTL entities. Light speed enforces a locality to events (or is it that locality enforces a speed of light?)

    69. Re:Duh by naoursla · · Score: 1

      On the slight chance that you are not a native Earthling I would like to express my desire to hitch a ride off this planet sometime in the next few decades. Just give me a few moments warning so I can grab my towel.

    70. Re:Duh by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The costs of sending crap into deep space will probably outweigh the benefits of mineral riches for far into the future, despite Ridley Scott's imagination

      Define "far into the future". 1000 years? 10,000 years? 100,000 years? You're still talking about less than a percent of the time since the dinosaurs died out, which again is less than a percent of the time since the Big Bang. On a galactic timescale, we'll start exploring deep space "soon", and if someone out there had a billion years head start they should probably be done by now...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    71. Re:Duh by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Or that exploring the galaxy is essentially infeasible thanks to the fundamental laws of physics. Or that, since we're but a miniscule, tiny, microscopic entity in this enormous thing we call the galaxy, they simply haven't found us yet. Or they have, but care not to make contact.

      The idea that we alone are the only living beings in the galaxy is so unbelievably improbable that, IMHO, such a belief that requires far more faith than to believe there are other intelligent beings out there, and we simply haven't found them yet.

    72. Re:Duh by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      We could probably build a few hundred .1c probes for a cost of no more than ten trillion dollars using current technology. Assuming just one of those probes sent us back information from a more advanced alien race, we could well recoup that investment a millionfold.

      Wow... ten trillion million dollars... that's a lot! Closing in on a gazillion.

    73. Re:Duh by juhaz · · Score: 1

      They didn't make them. They bought them. Probably from the cheapest bidder, THAT was the bad move.

    74. Re:Duh by isomeme · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that all you need is one race making one set of reasonably efficient self-replicating probes any time before about a million years ago (which is a fraction of a thousandth of the age of our galaxy). If that had ever happened, even once, you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without tripping over the damn things, figuratively speaking.

      The only scenarios that make sense to me are:

      (1) We're alone, or very nearly alone. For whatever reason, techonological civilizations are
              incredibly rare. Working from just one example, we have no idea how big a statistical fluke
              we might be.

      (2) As posited by e.g. Greg Bear, the galaxy is an incredibly dangerous place, filled with very
              advanced races locked in vicious, mortal combat with one another. Any new technology-using
              race that gets noticed is wiped out before it can become a threat. The radio signals we've
              already sent out into the galaxy mean we are doomed.

      I'd be very pleased to find out that some other alternative is true, of course.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
    75. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      The idea that we alone are the only living beings in the galaxy is so unbelievably improbable that, IMHO, such a belief that requires far more faith than to believe there are other intelligent beings out there, and we simply haven't found them yet.

      You're falling into the trap of the Anthropic Principle. The existence of humans tells us absolutely nothing about how probable life/intelligence is or isn't.

      Here's a thought experiment for you: let's say the odds against intelligent life are 1E30 to 1. It took trillions and trillions of cycles of the universe(s) for it to happen. How would we know it took that long?

      You know, the one iron-clad argument the creationists have going for them is that humans are incredibly, amazingly, unbelievably complicated. I'm an atheist, but I have to acknowledge that simple fact. Is it so hard to believe that intelligence may just be a totally unique occurance, but since we don't experience when it DOESN'T happen, we think it must be everywhere?

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    76. Re:Duh by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      You're falling into the trap of the Anthropic Principle. The existence of humans tells us absolutely nothing about how probable life/intelligence is or isn't.

      Oh bull. I'm talking purely about statistics. It's accepted there are around 100 billion stars in our galaxy. If only 1% of those have solar systems (I suspect the number is actually higher), you're talking 1 billion potential places where life could evolve. And given how resilient life has proven to be on this planet, I think the odds of life developing elsewhere are slightly higher than 1 in a billion.

      And that's just this galaxy.

      You know, the one iron-clad argument the creationists have going for them is that humans are incredibly, amazingly, unbelievably complicated.

      Bah, that isn't nearly as iron clad as it looks. Intelligence is simply the product of evolution. In that light, all you need is RNA. After that, it's probably just a matter of time.

      Is it so hard to believe that intelligence may just be a totally unique occurance

      Yes, it's incredibly hard to believe. Can you fathom how unbelievably, incredibly huge our universe is? I can't. I mean, it's absolutely *enormous*. The idea that we, in this ridiculously, mind-bogglingly vast universe are the *only* intelligent life is, frankly, completely laughable (not to mention incredibly conceited). The odds against that are astronomical, to say the least.

    77. Re:Duh by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's incredibly hard to believe. Can you fathom how unbelievably, incredibly huge our universe is? I can't. I mean, it's absolutely *enormous*.

      That's the Sagan argument. The galaxy (never mind the universe) is so big that it "just has" to have life other than us. Unfortunately, there's that pesky Fermi Paradox. We have a direct argument of a lack of life in this galaxy at least, and absolutely zero evidence for it. The "just has to" argument isn't very strong.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    78. Re:Duh by Mandrel · · Score: 1
      The trouble is that all you need is one race making one set of reasonably efficient self-replicating probes any time before about a million years ago (which is a fraction of a thousandth of the age of our galaxy). If that had ever happened, even once, you wouldn't be able to walk down the street without tripping over the damn things, figuratively speaking.

      The first thing a probe does when hitting a planet is to set-up/nano-build a transmitter-receiver to check out if there are any other probes in the area. If there are, it self-destructs.

      You also need some anti-cancer mechanisms in the replication process.

    79. Re:Duh by Mandrel · · Score: 1
      Which propulsion technology did you have in mind?

      Billions of nanotech AI probes weighing a few grams accelerated to near c by electromagnetics (including lasers)?

    80. Re:Duh by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      I'd be very pleased to find out that some other alternative is true, of course.

      Or it's a subtle combination of factors that these "all or nothing" hypotheses don't really capture (or do, but ignore, because they're not as "cool").

      For example: the frequency of technological civilisations falls somewhere between the "practically unheard of" and "one around every corner" extremes that are generally talked about, *BUT* this is then tempered by them all running along roughly the same timeline for developing technology (+/- a few million years) and the problem that making a working, self-replicating probe is a really, really, really hard problem (that is, much harder than we already think it is).

      Maybe there are a lot of Civs out there that have made self-replicating probes, but none of them have managed to get one working well enough for it to get more than, say, 5 iterations down the track before the "new" probes are functionally useless ?

      Maybe by the time a Civ has the technology to reasonably assemble such probes, they've realised that doing so would probably be a risk not worth the reward ?

      Maybe they get built but then only deployed on very small scales (eg: no more than two iterations, travel no further than X away from your origin point before self-destructing) to mitigate some of the inherent risk ?

      There really is a whole spectrum of possibilities between "we are alone (or effectively alone)" and "we are going to die as soon as we become advanced enough for "everyone else" to notice us".

    81. Re:Duh by isomeme · · Score: 1

      The problem is that I don't believe that building self-replicating probes is a hard problem on the timescale of interest here. It's very difficult for me to imagine humans not solving it within a couple of centuries, if our civilization hangs together well enough to support continued research and technology development. Perhaps I'm completely wrong about this, of course.

      The other problem is that I don't believe in explanations requiring all civilizations to exercise prudence, self-restraint, and altruism. Given how spotty the record of the one civilization we know about is on these virtues, it's by no means apparent why others would be saints by comparison. And, of course, all it takes is one less-responsible civilization to fill the galaxy with Von Neumann machines over the span of a million years or so.

      If we posit that no such irresponsible civilization has existed, we're left with two potential explanations: Either the total number of civilizations is quite low, or any civilization that reaches the point of being able to build successful VN machines is inevitably responsible by that time (e.g., because the ones that remain irresponsible with precursor technologies always destroy themselves in short order). But again, the counter-counterargument is that it only takes one civilization successfully building VN machines to fill the galaxy with them, which leads us back to the low-civilization-count model.

      All of this is completely speculative, of course. We have two data points to go on: the nature of our own technological civilization, and the absence of evidence for others. That's not a good foundation on which to build a reliable theoretical structure.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
  8. The Galactic Lottery by neo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Come on. 4% is a hell of a lot better than your odds of winning the lottery and that happens *everyday*.

    Plus he's not taking into account multiple alien races. So that's like double 4% which is almost 8%. Do that a few hundred times and you get 108%. This guy clearly doesn't understand math.

    1. Re:The Galactic Lottery by solafide · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Plus he's not taking into account multiple alien races. So that's like double 4% which is almost 8%. Do that a few hundred times and you get 108%. This guy clearly doesn't understand math.
      Nope, do that n times and you get 1-(.96)^n probability they find us.
    2. Re:The Galactic Lottery by dmd · · Score: 3, Funny

      And this guy clearly doesn't understand humor.

    3. Re:The Galactic Lottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But he is informative.

    4. Re:The Galactic Lottery by Dannon · · Score: 1

      4% is a hell of a lot better than your odds of winning the lottery and that happens *everyday*.

      I'd like to meet the person who wins the lottery every day... So I can peek over their shoulder at the numbers.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    5. Re:The Galactic Lottery by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Funny

      It was 4, again.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    6. Re:The Galactic Lottery by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      True, but its still a nice reminder of the actual way it should be (I don't particularly like doing probabilities). Quick numbers say if there were so many of these advanced 'immortal'* species, you'd get:

      1: 4%
      2: 7.84%
      5: 18.4%
      10: 33.5%
      50: 87%
      100: 98.3%

      * By 'immortal' I mean species that have moved off planet and gotten past the point where accidentally killing themselves is a serious threat.

    7. Re:The Galactic Lottery by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Yes, you know, this really frustrates me when people misuse statistics like this. It's an interesting little analysis, but let's not pretend it actually tells us anything. Ok, so given certain assumptions that may well be wrong, it's unlikely that aliens are aware of us. Of course, first, his assumptions may be wrong. More importantly, even if we assume that such an event is *extremely* unlikely, that still doesn't give us the slightest indication that it hasn't happened. Unlikely things happen *all the time*. Every day. Of all the things that are unlikely to happen, it is in fact very likely that one of those unlikely things will happen today. We don't know which unlikely thing, we don't know where it will happen or to whom, but something unlikely will very likely happen today.

      So, in fact, there could be a .00001% chance that I will be struck by lightning today, but that does not, in any way, indicate logically that I won't be struck by lightning today. All the statistical improbability of being struck by lightning means is, if I have to make decisions where I assume either that I will be struck by lightning or that I won't, it's probably better to assume that I won't. Still, don't forget that it could happen!

      If I have 1000 boxes and 999 are empty while 1 is full of money, it might take me a very long time to find the money. Searching 1 box at a time, I might have to go through 999 empties before I find the right one. Or-- it's also entirely possible that I'll find the correct box within the first couple tries. You can calculate the statistical probability, and tell me I have a .1% chance of finding it on the first try, and a 50% chance of finding it within the first 500, but you can not, using statistics, tell me with any kind of certainty how many boxes I'll have to open before I find the money.

    8. Re:The Galactic Lottery by ear1grey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but what if they've all found each other already? Either

      1. they declare their search a success and stop looking, or
      2. right now they are amassing terrorist cells behind our borders so we must draft emergency legislation that ignores the Universal Declaration of Sentient Species Rights in order to protect our family's oil interests*.

        *early draft - perhaps this should say "our planet"

  9. I would hope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...there was more than one other alien civilization.

    1. Re:I would hope by metlin · · Score: 1
      I would hope ...there was more than one other alien civilization.


      Well, yes.

      They are called the French and they across the pond.

      =)

      (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
    2. Re:I would hope by lonechicken · · Score: 1
      I would hope ...there was more than one other alien civilization.
      Well, yes. They are called the French and they across the pond.
      One of the great first jokes from Futurama had people from all over the world counting down on New Year's Eve prior to the year 3000, in their own languages. (at the same time for some reason). Even aliens counted down in their language. But the French counted down in English. So in less than a thousand years, they probably won't be so alien to us.
    3. Re:I would hope by metlin · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they might have had Queen Liz as the French queen, too.

  10. Five more minutes... by Colonel_Zoff · · Score: 0

    Well, they better hurry, those aliens have only five minutes to find us before mankind will be utterly exterminated in a global thermonuclear war! The way I see it, that Doomsday Clock is a terrible risk to all free men!

  11. Good news is: by hsmith · · Score: 1

    Humans will have killed themselves off with war before they have the chance to find us!

    1. Re:Good news is: by phoric · · Score: 1

      You're right. So what're we gonna do about it?

      Screw it, lets kill those war-mongering bastards!!

  12. Be Fruitful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If he isn't right, maybe the aliens have been fucking alot?

    I hear they like anal.

  13. Aww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A major blow to star trek fans.......

    1. Re:Aww by CheeseburgerBrown · · Score: 1

      A major blow to star trek fans...

      That's the gist of the wet dreams, yes. Hope will never die.

  14. Wrong, wrong, wrong by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This figure of taking billions of years to explore the galaxy is utterly wrong. Actually, it only takes a few dozen million years to colonize the entire damn galaxy, which is a lot more effort than merely exploring it.

    This figure is based on some very reasonable assumptions. Colony ships travel at much below the speed of light. Each colony gets a thousand years of development time from first colonization before it starts sending out its own colony ships. As you can see, even though it seems quite "slow", thanks to the magic of exponential growth, the entire galaxy is colonized in short order.

    We won't merely be discovered if aliens exist - we'll be colonized. That's the most likely scenario for running into aliens. If they never spread beyond their home planet, they'll just be one star out of trillions - but if they do start colonizing, we'd find them everywhere.

    1. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the speed of the ships increase during the thousand years? HEll what is to say we won't find a way around tha pesky speed of light.

      --
      You mad
    2. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      This figure is based on some very reasonable assumptions. Colony ships travel at much below the speed of light.

      You're assuming interstellar colonization as practical. While it's a sci-fi staple, load of fun to imagine, it's quite likely not.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    3. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1

      You're assuming interstellar colonization as practical. While it's a sci-fi staple, load of fun to imagine, it's quite likely not.


      The only question about its feasibility is whether we start using energy sources of the appropriate magnitude or not. All the rest is just engineering.

      If Humanity stays on Earth and doesn't exploit extraterrestrial resources (space based solar, mining asteroids, the moon, etc) then we probably won't have that magnitude of energy.

      If we do expand out, the energy required is pretty trivial to collect, not so trivial to focus and convert to usably driving interstellar spacecraft, but that's just an economics question.
    4. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      This figure is based on some very reasonable assumptions. Colony ships travel at much below the speed of light.

      You're assuming interstellar colonization as practical. While it's a sci-fi staple, load of fun to imagine, it's quite likely not.

      Why isn't it practical? There's no reason whatsoever that it won't be practical. Just over a hundred years ago they said human flight was impractical too, you know. And look at the airline industry these days. There's a huge difference between FTL, a science fiction staple that is physically impossible as far as we know, and space colonization another science fiction staple that has no physical laws standing in its way. Rockets are a science fiction staple too, you know, but nobody these days is claiming that they are impractical ...
    5. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the speed of the ships increase during the thousand years? HEll what is to say we won't find a way around tha pesky speed of light. Yes, technology would definitely improve. But I used very low-ball, reasonable estimates in this calculation, which include that the laws of physics as we know them today are correct, and that FTL isn't possible. The point is, even under the most pessimistic of conditions, a civilization that is actively colonizing will cover the entire galaxy on the order of millions of years, not billions.
    6. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Snad · · Score: 1
      The only question about its feasibility is whether we start using energy sources of the appropriate magnitude or not. All the rest is just engineering.

      There's also an implied fecundity assumption in there, as well as an assumption that mass colonisation (as against merely spreading the gene pool a little further) is desirable.

      After all, if you're sending out colony ships a thousand years after a planet is newly colonised then you're assuming a certain population growth sufficient that :
      (a) there's enough of a population to remain effective and sustainable after the colony ship (containing what would necessarily be a reasonable chunk of that population) leaves; and
      (b) there's enough of a population - or other demand - to create the impetus to send out a colony ship.

      To some extent, (b) rather assumes there's a desire to colonise for the sake of colonisation, which isn't necessarily a bad assumption (they're aliens - who knows what their desires are...) but is an assumption nonetheless.

    7. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 1

      The second is a question about motivation, not feasibility. Whether we (or future humans) WOULD do it is different from COULD we do it.

      The first is not mathematically all that serious; peak total fertility rate in the US was 3.8 children per female in the 1950s (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_rate ); that's a factor of around 1.7 to 1.8 increase in population per generation, including child mortality, and with an average generation length about 32 years gives a doubling in population every roughly 40 years. The original probe could be re-launched with a full crew, 80 years after arrival, leaving 3/4th of the then-colony population to keep growing, or 120 years later leaving 7/8th.

      What's more significant is how long it will take for the new colony to populate up enough to economically produce new probes, which is so dependent on economics and engineering assumptions and the local resources where they colonize that I don't know if it's reasonably predictable ahead of time. We could go into scenarios, but I don't know what a typical case would look like.

    8. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by tygt · · Score: 1
      Growth would be exponential to begin with, but eventually the growth would slow down, and approach zero.

      The exponential growth occurs while each probe has vast amounts of unmapped space, but eventually there will be so many probes present that the choices for further discovery are limited more and more; eventually, the whole galaxy will be "known"/"discovered" and there will be nothing left to discover.... until the probes bugger off to the next island in the universe.

    9. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Oh, the /. crowd (that mysterious entity) will at least each month mention how rockets are impractical and how the space elevator will salvage us all. Twice each month, if you count the dupe.

    10. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As poor as our ability to observe planets around stars is, we've so far found space to be overall:

      big
      cold
      empty
      extremely cold
      inhospitible

      All this speculation about colonizing the galaxy depends on how many habitable planets actually exist, which the figure is so far at 1: Earth.

      So, if we could develop some seriously cool matter moving technology to move, split, and join planets, then we could possibly put a planet around every appropriate star type.

    11. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      After all, if you're sending out colony ships a thousand years after a planet is newly colonised then you're assuming a certain population growth sufficient that :

      (a) there's enough of a population to remain effective and sustainable after the colony ship (containing what would necessarily be a reasonable chunk of that population) leaves; and

      (b) there's enough of a population - or other demand - to create the impetus to send out a colony ship.

      Fecundity. Let's assume a colony ship with 10000 people on it. Let's assume a population growth rate of 1.5% per year (lower than Earth has today, by the way). In 1000 years, the "colony" has a population of 29 Billion (with a B) people. Finding 10000 of that 29000000000 who want to make the jump to the next place should be trivial.

      So, no, it wouldn't take a reasonable chunk of that population (well, *I* don't consider 1/3000000th of the population a big deal, perhaps others might disagree).

      Note that with a population growth rate similar to Earth's today (2%+), you would get from 10000 to 10 billion in only 700 years.

      Note that a continued population growth may not be inevitable with an increasing technology. Note that finding 10000 people willing to go to the back end of beyond may be difficult if technology is sufficiently advanced (they might be too comfortable at home to want to pick up and go).

      Note that if you can find 10000 people willing to make the jump every century, you'll put out 10 colonies every millenium, and each colony will begin doing so after a millenium. Under those conditions, we'd expand across the galaxy at barely under the speed of our transports, colonizing all the way (we'd put out a colony transport aimed at each star in the galaxy in under 10000 years, and the rest would just be waiting for reports back....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    12. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by orkysoft · · Score: 1

      Just over a hundred years ago they said human flight was impractical too, you know. And look at the airline industry these days.

      Exactly.

      --

      I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
    13. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 1

      Assuming everything else is realistic (which is questionable), growth would be roughly quadratic, not exponential (at least after an early saturation point) -- things would likely spread out in a growing sphere around the origin. Exponential growth is not sustainable in a finite-dimensional geometry...

      --

      I am the man with no sig!

    14. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      Why isn't it practical? There's no reason whatsoever that it won't be practical.

      Number one, there has to be someplace to go. The number of planets that can support life of some kind is probably fairly large; the number that can support human life in a pleasant fashion is almost certain to be rather small. Terraforming is fantasy; even if achieved, we'd use it on Mars and Venus first, maybe move some of the gas giant moons around.

      Number two, there has to be a way to get there - not just to send a vessel, but to send a vessel with a living healthy crew that maintains the culture of their home world (else why bother to send them?). We haven't even managed to get humans out of Earth's orbit yet, or even keep one in orbit for more than 500 days; building multi-generation colony ships is engineering fantasy, biological fanstsy, and sociological fantasy.

      Number three, a substantial part of the civilization in question has to agree that there's a good reason to go there. An interstellar colony mission would be a tremendous expense; it's a tremendous question of politics and economics. (For comparison,

      Fantasies are fine things. Every so often we manage to make one come true, and it would be way cool if interstellar colonization turned out to be one of those. But in assessing the "objective" universe, we ought not to make assumptions based on them.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    15. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by trevorhu · · Score: 1

      Estimated time to colonize the galaxy http://stuff.mit.edu/people/etekle/Articles/0700cr awfordbox3.html by Ian Crawford, an astronomer in the department of physics and astronomy at University College London. Taken from Scientifc American July 2000 issue http://stuff.mit.edu/people/etekle/Articles/aliens .html

    16. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Snad · · Score: 1

      29 billion assuming nobody dies over that 1000 years...

      One assumes our alien overlords aren't immortal but yes I'll freely admit I was pulling numbers out of my ass somewhat.

      If we assume a fairly normal kind of human span - say we round it up to 100 years to allow for better medical technology - then after 1,000 years your 10,000 hardy colonists becomes a bit under a tenth (2.2billion) of the linear 29 billion. Now that's a fairly rough and ready working based on killing off the population count at the turn of the previous century every hundred years. ie at year 100 we have 44,000 colonists but 10,000 of them (the original crew) die, leaving 34,000. At year 1,000 we have 2.9billion colonists but the 660million around at year 900 die off leaving 2.2billion.

      That's not factoring in reproduction age ranges (are our aliens reproductive from age 5 to 95, or 12 to 50?) but that's getting too messy for probably little more accuracy.

      Now fair enough, 10,000 of out 2.2billion is fairly small so I'll concede the first part. But a whole planet with 2.9 billion is unlikely to be pushing too hard for colonisation.

      Assuming human-like motivations, of course.

    17. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Snad · · Score: 1

      Actually, there are some fairly obvious fundamental flaws in my post, on retrospect.

      I blame lack of coffee and general stupidity....

    18. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      The only question about its feasibility is whether we start using energy sources of the appropriate magnitude or not. All the rest is just engineering.

      It's not "just" engineering; it's also politics, economics, philosophy, biology - even, if I may use a dangerous word, spirituality, in the sense of one's relationship with the universe.

      Assuming that all of these issue are certain, or even likely, to be resolved, is naive in the extreme. Not to say I don't want them solved, just saying that to attack TFA on the basis that "pheh, interstellar travel is easy" is silly.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    19. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      We won't merely be discovered if aliens exist - we'll be colonized. That's the most likely scenario for running into aliens. If they never spread beyond their home planet, they'll just be one star out of trillions - but if they do start colonizing, we'd find them everywhere.

      What I don't get is why people (especially Sagan's followers and B-movie 'writers') are so fixated on planets. Why, once you managed to get out of one steep gravity do you want to throw yourself down another? Is not a planet but a big lump of resources, inconveniently located?

      Right now, once we get out of orbit we return to Earth because that's where all the good stuff is (hookers, paychecks, hookers to blow paychecks on.) Terraforming in the movies takes all of 5 minutes at the push of the big ol' Genesis button. In reality, you are looking at centuries of work with our (and our grandkids) level of technology. I can't find the study, but someone posted to USENET an article describing how, compared with sublight travel between the stars, building a self-sufficient colony using the pop-sci idea of glazing a dead world with a thin layer of Earth's ecosystem is ludicrously slow. Were talking a few throusand yeas of travel vs. 10 to 100's of thousands of years of terraforming, building infrastructure and human breeding rates that would make a nymphomaniac break out in sweat.

      Iain Banks Culture Novels and the Orion's Arm take a much more sensible view of things. Once you build the luxury space colony ships, why live planetside? Just cruise from star system to star system and see the sights. And we are talking ships the size of Halo here, not some 160 crew member job with a pie-tin shell and day-glow tipped vibrators for engines. Like O'Neil colonies with engines where whole generations of people can grow up to only work the order counter at the McDonald's space-colony franchise locations.

      Then there is the fundamental assumption behind the Drake equation and Fermi's Paradox: both only talk about life as we know it. For all we know, every star system has an exact copy of Earth, save that the people consider radio a religious Evil to be suppressed and lasers and robots to be tools of the Devil. It smacks of egocentric anthropomorphism to assume that if we encounter a phenomena that at least fits the definitions of life (increte, excrete, secrete, and reproduce) we'd be able to recognize it, and not accidentally kill it.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    20. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely agree. We should have started moving out to space already, although there must be solved few problems.

    21. Re:Wrong, wrong, wrong by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      29 billion assuming nobody dies over that 1000 years...

      Well, no, it doesn't. Population growth rates on Earth are greater than 2% per year. Some people die every year, some are born every year, but on balance, there are 2% more at the end of the year than at the beginning. Please note that I did NOT specify a Birth Rate of 1.5%, but a growth rate of 1.5%.

      If we assume a fairly normal kind of human span - say we round it up to 100 years to allow for better medical technology - then after 1,000 years your 10,000 hardy colonists becomes a bit under a tenth (2.2billion) of the linear 29 billion. Now that's a fairly rough and ready working based on killing off the population count at the turn of the previous century every hundred years. ie at year 100 we have 44,000 colonists but 10,000 of them (the original crew) die, leaving 34,000. At year 1,000 we have 2.9billion colonists but the 660million around at year 900 die off leaving 2.2billion.

      If we assume that my Growth Rate were meant as a Birth Rate, you're quite correct. It wasn't so meant.

      Note that Growth Rates are declining worldwide. Traditionally (which means, "when I was a lad", of course), they were well over 2.5% - thus the "Population Bomb" that was discussed so much back then. They've been declining for a long time now, and the latest projections show them declining into negative numbers within this century, and population beginning to decline worldwide - which'll have an unpredictable effect on the urge to colonize.

      In any case, a 1.5% population growth rate isn't terribly unreasonable for a colony. Though it won't really be a "colony" by the time it has a population over one billion. Realistically, I expect that any colony world will settle at a stable, sustainable population in the low billions by the first millenium after landing, or shortly thereafter.

      That said, even if it take 10,000 years for a colony to start expanding with its own colony ships, that doesn't especially increase the time required to colonize the galaxy - limiting factor will still be transport speed, so we'll (or our hypothetical alien overlords will) fill the galaxy at a speed slightly slower than our transports can cross it - one million years at 10% of c, which is an eyeblink in the lifetime of the universe....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  15. Well.. by Drakin020 · · Score: 0

    Unless the aliens are more productive. They don't have to be built on our level.

    --
    The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  16. Unless they're nearby already by Kelson · · Score: 1
    aliens can't have had time required to find us yet.

    So it would take 10 billion years to visit 4% of the Milky Way. In theory, if there are any aliens within the nearest 4% to us, they may have had time to visit us. Realistically, let's say the nearest 2%, to allow time for intelligent life to evolve and develop space travel. 2% of the galaxy is still a pretty big space, though you'd think we'd have seen some evidence of an alien civilization that (relatively) nearby.

  17. Well, DUH! by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    To paraphrase: But Sir! If we only send 8 probes it'll take billions of years to search a mere 4% of the Milky Way galaxy!

    That's why you have to make the probes self replicating.. utilizing in-situ resources to make more probes at each star they visit, the growth becomes exponential and it only takes a few thousand years to search the entire galaxy. And seeing as we're visiting all these stars anyway, how about looking for planets that don't have life on them, but have nice suitable conditions for starting life on them. Cover a virgin planet with a wide variety of Earth lifeforms and fly on.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Well, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said virgin on Slashdot.

      hehehehee

    2. Re:Well, DUH! by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To be pedantic ... the absolute minimum time to explore the whole galaxy from Earth is about 80,000 light-years, because the farthest part of the galaxy is about 80,000 light-years away from us. Although to be even more pedantic, double that, because you can't really say you've explored until the information about what you've found has made it back to you.

      So, yeah, you can't explore the galaxy in only a few thousand years.

    3. Re:Well, DUH! by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Meh, it's still a phenomenally short amount of time.. on a galactic scale.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Well, DUH! by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's why you have to make the probes self replicating

      Hopefuly they don't need to see any Earth-based SciFi to know that self replicating probes are a phenomenally *bad* idea.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    5. Re:Well, DUH! by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      To paraphrase: But Sir! If we only send 8 probes it'll take billions of years to search a mere 4% of the Milky Way galaxy!

      That's why you have to make the probes self replicating.. utilizing in-situ resources to make more probes at each star they visit, the growth becomes exponential and it only takes a few thousand years to search the entire galaxy. And seeing as we're visiting all these stars anyway, how about looking for planets that don't have life on them, but have nice suitable conditions for starting life on them. Cover a virgin planet with a wide variety of Earth lifeforms and fly on.


      Ummm... The galaxy is something like 100,000 ly across. So, if we pretend that we were in the middle, that's 50,000 ly of travel in every direction. Assuming we could get a probe close enough to c as makes no never mind, then that's 100,000 years minimum for the probe to get to the other side of the galaxy and transmit a "Hello World" back to us. (Does it count as 'explored' if we can only declare that the probe probably made it by now, but we won't know if it made it for another 50,000 years?) I don't really conisder 100,000 to be a "few thousand." And *we* couldn't do it that fast -- only some hypothetical alients in the dead center.

      Now, that assumes that the probe could accelerate to top speed really fast, so the time spend accelerating doesn't count. If the probe is stopping to build more of itself every few star systems, then it is going to have to slow down, stop, and spend time building new probes. On a 50,000 year journey, 4-ish years spent getting up to speed is quite negligible. And, since close enough to c as makes no never mind is really quite remarkably fast, it will probably take at least that long to get going (or to get stopping). Assuming a pit stop every ten ly (despite the fact that stars may be less than 1 ly apart in the densest parts of the galaxy, and our nearest neighbor is only about 4 ly), with the stopping and going deceleration time, it'll take about 14 years to cover the 10 ly. So, the outer edge of our fleet of probes will take something like 140,000 years to cross half the galaxy. Given our actual position, we will actually have like 3/4 of the galaxy to cross to get to the far edge, which would push up the time for exploration up to the best part of 200,000 years.

      Figuring out how to accelerate your probes to close enough to c for this to be close to right, while also carrying enough propellant to slow down in the next system and refuel to be able to do it again is left as an excercise to the reader. Oh, and you have to lug an antenna big enough to send a signal back. (Or maybe just to the nearest probe which will relay it... But, that means no straight line path for the signal back home, which means it takes longer...)

      Anyhow, the replicating probes idea is pretty neat, and I'm all for it, but we certainly won't have the whole galaxy explored in a "few" thousand years for any forseeable technology. If we can develop FTL and whatnot, all bets are off. the whole problem may turn out to be an x ly trip to the nearest black hole, and a y ms hop to anywhere in the universe.
    6. Re:Well, DUH! by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Technically, humans are "self-replicating probes".

      What if the probes are the alien civilization? Still a bad idea? Or just another Darwinian race for resources (which hopefully we can attend as observers, on account of our "probe" technology not needing the same resources as the alien technology)?

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    7. Re:Well, DUH! by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      They aren't bacteria, they won't mutate. You can soft-limit the number of generations they will replicate to, essentially limiting their spread, and also program an end-of-life date if you so desire.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    8. Re:Well, DUH! by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >Technically, humans are "self-replicating probes".

      And they *are* a bad idea. They move to an area and multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way they can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. They're a plague.

    9. Re:Well, DUH! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      I wasn't aware of any Law of Extraterrestrial Wisdom which states that no extraterrestrial civilization ever follows through on a "bad idea."

    10. Re:Well, DUH! by cnettel · · Score: 1

      If the count is large enough, one of them WILL be hit by a couple of muons in just the right places to achieve a program change to disable said generation limit, for example. If we start talking about more than 10^12 units, I would certainly at least call for a design with additional safe-guards to handle mutation. (From the safety point of view, any detected mutation should result in self destruction. If that's too restrictive to maintain a population, then we certainly need to consider full natural selection acting on these things.)

    11. Re:Well, DUH! by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic ... the absolute minimum time to explore the whole galaxy from Earth is about 80,000 light-years, because the farthest part of the galaxy is about 80,000 light-years away from us. Although to be even more pedantic, double that, because you can't really say you've explored until the information about what you've found has made it back to you.

      To be more pedantic, you don't necessarily have to send out probes or wait for signals from the outer reaches of the galaxy to reach us, because they've been sending a huge number of frequencies for the last 80,000 years already. Since almost everything "interesting" out there is rotating and/or orbiting something else, almost nothing is permanently invisible from our current location. We just need more, bigger, and more sensitive sensor arrays. While this plays with the definition of "exploring", it can be argued that nothing is ever truly explored in terms of visiting every location, and often most things are explored remotely by observation.

    12. Re:Well, DUH! by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      To be pedantic ... the absolute minimum time to explore the whole galaxy from Earth is about 80,000 light-years

      You probably mean "To be incorrect", because if memory (and Wikipedia) serves, light-year is a unit of length, not a unit of time. I'm amazed that nobody pointed that out so far and this post was modded "Insightful"... I thought that Slashdot swarmed with nerds.

      --
      So say we all
    13. Re:Well, DUH! by Babbster · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's a unit of distance, but it can also function as a unit of time because the basis of the measurement is speed [of light]. So, when you have something (like radio waves) traveling the speed of light [constantly], the term "light years" covers both distance and time.

    14. Re:Well, DUH! by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Bla bla bla sophomoric Hollywood philosophy duly noted.

      Like there's anything wrong with viruses.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    15. Re:Well, DUH! by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, but no. The light-year is the distance covered in a year at the speed of light. The unit of time you're looking for is the year. What you're saying is equivalent to "The mile is a unit of time, if you assume travel at 60 mph."

      --
      Fnord.
    16. Re:Well, DUH! by Babbster · · Score: 1

      I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's the difference between the literal meaning and the inferred meaning. If I ride around in a spaceship that travels at the speed of light and I saw "I'm 5 years from home," someone who knows how fast I can travel can infer from my statement that I'm 5 light years from home. While I admit it's more than a semantical difference, I still think that calling someone on it is a little nitpicky. :)

    17. Re:Well, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I guess I didn't make myself clear. It's the difference between the literal meaning and the inferred meaning. If I ride around in a spaceship that travels at the speed of light and I saw "I'm 5 years from home," someone who knows how fast I can travel can infer from my statement that I'm 5 light years from home. While I admit it's more than a semantical difference, I still think that calling someone on it is a little nitpicky. :)"

      Still NO and NO some more. just because it has the word year in it does not make it time. It is a fixed distance, any inferred meaning is coming from you.

    18. Re:Well, DUH! by Babbster · · Score: 1

      So, you're being purposely obtuse and forcefully literal. That's certainly your prerogative! I'll just tip my king now.

    19. Re:Well, DUH! by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      I'll accept that in a narrow context it's acceptable in casual conversation. However, Ignorant Aardvark's post which started this tangent is absolutely incorrect no matter how you cut it. It's a common abuse of the term that I encounter often in my line of work, so I'm always tempted to chime in on any prolonged debate on the subject.

      --
      Fnord.
    20. Re:Well, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be a prick... light-years isn't a measure of time. ;)

    21. Re:Well, DUH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Next time, leave the hollywood crap in hollywood and wake up to smell the roses.

      EVERY living organism follows the pattern.

  18. Who say's they haven't? by ack154 · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    unless they can develop an exotic form of transport that gets them across the galaxy in two weeks it's still going to take millions of years to find us

    Who says they don't already have that transport? How would we know if they did or they didn't? Not that I know one way or another if there's any other life out there... but if it's possible there is not life elsewhere, isn't it also possible that there is life and that life that might exist possibly created some "exotic form of transport" already?
  19. Interesting, but... by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Why would a supercivilisation build only 8 probes? They could have technology to detect Earth sized planets in the habitable zone. And they could send out hundreds of thousands probes to such planets. The problem is, if they don't have warp speed, these probes would not reach the planets until either the destination is already destroyed, or the sending civilisation itself is destroyed.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    1. Re:Interesting, but... by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Why would a supercivilisation build only 8 probes?They could have technology to detect Earth sized planets in the habitable zone.And they could send out hundreds of thousands probes to such planets.The problem is, if they don't have warp speed, these probes would not reach the planets until either the destination is already destroyed, or the sending civilisation itself is destroyed. Please re-examine your time scales. The galaxy is only 100,000 light-years across. Now it's likely that a civilization could wipe itself out in the amount of time it takes to get anywhere, but the destination is still going to exist. Remember, solar systems and planets exist on time scales on the order of billions of years. A few hundred thousand years is a blink in cosmological time.

      And keep in mind, if they're detecting habitable planets, they're probably going to find many of those within a small radius (remember, an average spherical volume of the Milky Way that is just 100 lt-yr in diameter contains millions of stars). It's not going to take hundreds of thousands of years to explore the nearer systems, it'll take hundreds or thousands of years. That's not necessarily even too long to miss the civilizations while they still exist!
  20. Wrong by TheWoozle · · Score: 2, Funny

    I need to introduce this guy to my next-door neighbor...

    --
    Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
  21. How close minded can one be? by quincunx55555 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet."

    Under what time frame? If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years, then they'd have plenty of time (and would probably have technology more advanced then sending out physical "probes"). It doesn't see likely from what we know, but I don't think we actually know that much.

    Why is it that scientists think that only what we can achieve is possible? It's like us looking for aliens using our technology (SETI). Not that it's impossible, but I'd think other intelligent being could come up with other forms of communication than our own; even if it wasn't more "advanced".

    1. Re:How close minded can one be? by Rurouni_Jaden · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years, then they'd have plenty of time (and would probably have technology more advanced then sending out physical "probes")."

      when they show up, please ask them how they survived the big bang.

    2. Re:How close minded can one be? by Kelson · · Score: 2, Informative
      If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years

      That would be a neat trick, considering that as far as we can tell the universe is only on the order of 10 billion years old. Though 100 Quintillion years with high technology is probably long enough to figure out time travel, so I suppose this could still work.

    3. Re:How close minded can one be? by poticlin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      [..]as far as we can tell[..]

      Magic words...

      When it comes to Alien technology or understanding of the Universe. All we can do is assume. We judge and make predictions, our theories are based on our perception of things.

    4. Re:How close minded can one be? by Wyrd01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There is always the possibility that it's only our current universe that is 10 billion years old.

      Maybe the big bang wasn't a bang at all, but was instead the "bottom" of a black hole from a neighboring universe (A white hole)... their balck hole sucks up a "universe-load" of matter, condenses it, and funnels it down a spout... then all that matter comes out the other end into our universe. No longer under the influence of astronomical gravity the matter quickly expands and cools and, tada, here's a new universe.

      Under that scenario the meta-verse could have been around for who knows how many years and could contain umpteen million universes spewing matter around amongst themselves and/or spawning off completely new "spaces". If a civilization could figure out a way to ride through one of these and into a fresh new universe they could potentially persist for billions or trillions of years.

      The book Macrolife includes many of these concepts and is an all-around great SF book.

    5. Re:How close minded can one be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This ignores entropy and heat death. 100 quintillion years from now the entropy of the universe would be way, way, way too high for atoms to exist. The universe would be awash in photons and very little else. The absence of matter would preclude the existence of aliens (and people), and entropy would preclude the necessary energy requirements for time travel.

    6. Re:How close minded can one be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...how they survived the big bang

      Oops, sorry that was me, I accidentally hit the reset button for the universe again. We really need to redesign that layout next release.

    7. Re:How close minded can one be? by ajedgar · · Score: 1

      Easy:
      http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Immortality-Modern-C osmology-Resurrection/dp/0385467990

      Besides the usual tag lines of "proving the existence of God" the core of his thesis is more surviving the next big bang.

      And as Douglas Adams is fond of pointing out, "some think this has already happened"...

      a.

    8. Re:How close minded can one be? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Yes, but if you scrap that away, it makes no sense to try to count "years" of existence (as it's clearly so totally different from what we've learned about existence so far).

    9. Re:How close minded can one be? by linuxguy1454 · · Score: 1

      "We survived the 'Big Bang' because there wasn't one. Your earth scientists have it all wrong. The red-shift of light that they base all their theories of the duration of the universe is not caused by acceleration of stars away from each other. It is caused by helium atoms between earth and the light sources. The further away a star is, the more helium has a chance to shift the spectrum. Helium, what you call a noble gas, is very difficult to detect with your earth instruments. Stars are not accelerating at all. The whole universe has been around for a LOT longer than you think."

    10. Re:How close minded can one be? by corbettw · · Score: 3, Funny

      If an alien race has had advanced technology for 100,000,000 Trillion years...

      Holy shit, Tom Cruise posts on Slashdot!

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    11. Re:How close minded can one be? by Jasper__unique_dammi · · Score: 1

      Note that the stars arent accelerating aways from eachother, space between them is expanding.
      Your theory is one similar to the "tired light" idea, and suffers from the same problems:
      -If light got redshifted by decay somehow, this would also cause impulse changes, blurring the images. (since direction of light changes, also this would happen quite random)
      -Looking at same sized objects further and further away actually means that eventually the angle of the image increases again. (image becomes larger again.) This cannot be explained with "tired light". It is because that "shell" of space you are looking at had an smaller surface then 4*Pi*R^2 would actually suggest.

      There is also a limit how long the universe could have existed in its current state, since the stars would heat it up. For instance if the universe was constant, every line of sight would eventually reach some star, thus the intensity of the sky would be the same as the average surface of a star. (This is one of the earlier arguments against a statonairy universe)

  22. Mankind's mastery of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Universe is much older then 10 Billion Years Old. Petty humans.

  23. I once worked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Traveling at the speed of light, it would take a quarter million years to reach Andromeda. What's more is that if I went into statis now, the compound interest on my savings would pay for the journey.

    1. Re:I once worked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      a quarter million years is a neat trick, considering that the Andromeda galaxy is 2.2 million light years away. It's the furthest object visible to the naked eye.

      (Win free drinks! How far can the human eye see? 2.2 million light years)

    2. Re:I once worked out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What's more is that if I went into statis now, the compound interest on my savings would pay for the journey."

      Except, because of inflation, your real asset growth barely kept pace with the value of the dollar, while capital gains taxes consumed the rest of your real asset growth, so we're sorry to inform you that you're broke, and still owe Interstellar Resettlement Corporation 100 Billion Dollars.

    3. Re:I once worked out by usmc1944 · · Score: 1

      Not sure I follow, Andromeda is a different Galaxy over 2 million years away... we're talking about colonizing the Milky Way, our galaxy, which diameter is much smaller than the distance from us to Andromeda. Btw, The Guardian sucks, as pretty much all British newspapers... it's more about the gossips than the news.

    4. Re:I once worked out by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Btw, The Guardian sucks, as pretty much all British newspapers... it's more about the gossips than the news.
      Er, have you ever read the (actual paper) Guardian? Although it's probably a bit liberal/left wing for many Americans' tastes, it's a serious paper like the Times, not some gossip-rag like the Sun.

      You may have some incredibly serious and high-minded alternative source as your ideal of proper news, of course, if so I'd love to hear what it was.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  24. When they do find us . . . by Slithe · · Score: 1

    We can always give their computer systems a virus.

    --
    ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    1. Re:When they do find us . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we can shoot them down with our fighter jets because our gravity equalizes all other alien fighter craft.

  25. Only 10% the speed of light? by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

    They models used to reach the conclusion mentioned in the summary were calculated using a maximum speed of 10% the speed of light. Suppose that FTL travel had been developed by these advanced extraterrestrials - what then? I know it seems now like science fiction or fantasy, but you know the old adage about sufficiently advanced technology...

    --
    There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
  26. Self-Replicating Probes? by transiency · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about probes that land and replicate on foreign terrestrial bodies? 1 probe lands and makes 10 or a hundred of itself. Send out 10 of these type of probes, and exponential growth will do your work for you.

  27. What a fantastically stupid assumption by gd23ka · · Score: 0

    Who says extraterrestials limited to sublight speeds? They may well have the ability to teleport
    instantenously across the Galaxy. On top of that... who says they're from space light-years away?
    They could be maybe have evolved on this planet or in this solar system millions of years before we
    arrived on the scene. And then who says there is not an inhabitable why even earth-like planet
    orbiting a Star within 20 light years from here?

    Just because we don't know how to do it, doesn't mean someone else in the universe didn't find out
    how to do.

    The way I see it these scientists are humming a self-defeating mantra here.

    1. Re:What a fantastically stupid assumption by Darth+Muffin · · Score: 1
      Who says extraterrestials limited to sublight speeds?
      I do... and so does some Fermi guy ;)

      If you assume that ET exists, and if you assume by the sheer magnitude of the universe that there's quite a few of them, then by now one of them would have invented FTL. One of those would have been around far longer than mankind. Imagine mankind with FTL travel, we'd have the stars colonized in no time at all. Therefore, if ET exists (I prefer to think it's a safe assumption, otherwise the universe seems like a huge waste of space), and FTL exists, the overwhelming odds are that they would be here.

      I prefer to believe that FTL travel is simply not possible, which explains why they're not here. Yeah, I'm a depressing realist.

      --
      Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
    2. Re:What a fantastically stupid assumption by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      They may well have the ability to teleport instantenously(sic) across the Galaxy.


      Well where are they then? If they _may_ have such ability they would be teleporting back and forth to earth. The reasons to come to earth are pretty compelling:


      1) Help us


      2) Exterminate us


      3) Mess with us, just for fun


      4) See if they could possibly learn anything from us


      5) Enslave us (also for fun) -- we could be their bitches and scratch their backs and polish their shoes...ok maybe not this one ;)


      Reasons not to come to earth and avoid us even if they know about us:


      1) Possibility that we could infect them with some virus


      2) If they are hippie aliens then perhaps some altruistic reason like "don't mess with other planetary echo-systems" or "save the endangered alien races"



      To me it seems that they have a lot more reasons to visit us if they could. But they haven't yet, so this makes me doubt the fact that any civilization has such technology at this particular instant.


      I would make the same argument for time travel. If time travel into the past was possible _ever_ we would see visitors from the future. Sure the first ones to discover it might be careful not to mess with the past but there will be some nut jobs who will.

    3. Re:What a fantastically stupid assumption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you assume that ET exists, and if you assume by the sheer magnitude of the universe that there's quite a few of them, then by now one of them would have invented FTL. One of those would have been around far longer than mankind. Imagine mankind with FTL travel, we'd have the stars colonized in no time at all. Therefore, if ET exists (I prefer to think it's a safe assumption, otherwise the universe seems like a huge waste of space), and FTL exists, the overwhelming odds are that they would be here. I prefer to believe that FTL travel is simply not possible, which explains why they're not here. Yeah, I'm a depressing realist.

      Assuming ET exists and that by the magnitude of the univers that there is quite a few of them might be an ok assumption. After that you have to assume:

      1. Intelligent ET life is also fairly common and we aren't exceptional. 2. Intelligent life can actually last long enough to event FTL speed (ie not be killed by supernovas, asteroids, themselves). 3. FTL speed would be so cheap and easy to do that ET's would use it to explore everywhere.

      I think maybe the distances are so long, and the timespans so great that perhaps intelligent life is never around at the same time close enough to one another to make contact.

    4. Re:What a fantastically stupid assumption by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      Who's to say that there is only one universe ? (ignoring the pedantic definition of the term).

      If the galaxies are to the universe as the universe is to the greater existence of matter, then there are millions of universes. And I'm not talking odd dimensions. As far as we know the universe is infinite right ?, why do we think that ? If we could see the edge of the universe then it can't be infinite can it. And if we can't see the edge, it stands to reason we can't see what lies beyond the edge. So Multiple universes can exist just as multiple galaxies can exist. What we call "the big bang" could be equivalent to a super nova in a galaxy.

      So, who says that the "aliens" have had time to explore the inner reaches of "our" universe. It stands to reason that being more advanced should mean being older (as a civilisation), and that would also mean being closer to the beginning of our universe, or in other words nearer the "edge". So they might simply have struck out in a different direction first, into another universe.

      For a thought experiment, replace universe with galaxy and galaxy with solar system throughout this comment. I think that there is essentially no difference other than scale.

      Or maybe you are of a religious persuasion, and would prefer to think that we are somehow "special" in the universe. I wouldn't like to risk the consequences of such arrogance.

  28. More than one... by neurocutie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whatever his assumptions are that leads him to 4%... it seems that he is considering only the probability that any ONE alien civilization is looking. But in all likelihood there are many, if not millions of alien civilizations out there than may be search, so the probability that any ONE of those million will find us seems quite a bit higher than 4%.

    1. Re:More than one... by red_flea · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the million probes of those million other civilizations... How much would it suck if our probes saw one of their probes and thought it was just a comet or lone asteroid?

      So now our probes would have to recognize alien life as well as alien probes... Maybe if we design our probes in giant ass-shapes, we can rely on them recognizing it and doing what comes naturally to all alien probes.

    2. Re:More than one... by hjo3 · · Score: 1

      "But in all likelihood there are many, if not millions of alien civilizations out there"

      "In all likelihood..." -- What's the basis for this? How do you know what's most probable?

      You're criticizing his assumptions, but your statement is also complete conjecture. There's absolutely no evidence one way or the other to suggest how many alien civilizations there are (if any at all).

    3. Re:More than one... by neurocutie · · Score: 1
      You're criticizing his assumptions, but your statement is also complete conjecture. There's absolutely no evidence one way or the other to suggest how many alien civilizations there are (if any at all).
      No, I'm not criticizing his assumptions, I let others do that. I was criticizing how he set up the problem/hypothesis. Of course all of this is conjecture. But the arguments as to how many alien civilizations are out there are very old and I didn't feel the need to rehash them. Any science museum has a display of the sort of: if only 1% of the stars had planets and only 1% of the planets were Earth like and only 1% of these planets had life and only 1% of these planets had intelligent life, there would be millions of civilizations out there. Read Carl Sagan among the countless others... look at the SETI project. No need to rehash that stuff here...
    4. Re:More than one... by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 1

      And what's more, Rasmus Bjoerk's hypothesis was mean to solve the Fermi Paradox, which is based on the assumption that there are countless alien civilisations.
      So it's not unreasonable to expect Bjoerk to assume the same thing, otherwise his whole mentioning of the paradox would be meaninglss.

  29. I'd be careful with all those probes by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    in case one comes back wanting to be one with the creator - vger I anybody?

  30. Some potentially invalid assumptions? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    1. Probes sent by extraterrestials cannot travel faster than our probes.
    2. The ET search is not targeted.
    3. The ETs are not much closer to Earth and found us by luck, early in their search.

    At any rate, while the math is interesting, it just shows that we're not likely, as in snowball's-chance-in-hell likely, to have been found already. From a logical point of view, though, one cannot say that we haven't been found yet.

    As far as we know for certain, the Vogon construction fleet could be circling our system as we type these responses... though the chance of that being the truth is small enough that we could very well see an Improbability-driven ship come in for a landing at JFK or LAX.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    1. Re:Some potentially invalid assumptions? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "1. Probes sent by extraterrestrials cannot travel faster than our probes."
      Actually he is claiming that extraterrestrial probes can travel 1000 times faster than our probes.
      So far propulsion systems are not following Moore's law and there is no evidence that they ever will.
      This is a simulation made using guesses I would say that it is very interesting.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Some potentially invalid assumptions? by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually I think propulsion systems have gotten faster in the last 200 years.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    3. Re:Some potentially invalid assumptions? by griffeymac · · Score: 1

      Actually, they went to O'Hare.

    4. Re:Some potentially invalid assumptions? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Notice I said that they are not following Moore's law not that they are not getting faster.
      Even then take a look at the progress. The fastest man made object back then was a bullet or a cannon ball. They where probably just under Mach 1.
      By 1918 the fastest man made object was still cannon shells. but they where getting up to mach 3 or 4 for the Paris gun.
      So in about 200 years it jumped went up by a factor of 3 or 4.
      Once we got to large rockets we are now up 32kms or so with gravity assist. Pretty good increase over those last few years but still way below Moore's lay for electronics which is that they double in capability every 18 months.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Some potentially invalid assumptions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So far propulsion systems are not following Moore's law and there is no evidence that they ever will.
      Actually I think propulsion systems have gotten faster in the last 200 years.

      Your usage of "actually" implies to me that you are contradicting the original term, but I don't see how the fact that propulsion systems getting faster in the last 200 years invalidates the claim that they are not following Moore's law, or that there is no evidence that they ever will.

  31. Calvin says by TheCybernator · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

  32. Yes, and? by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 1

    Did he do any research showing that it's impossible for 8 people to find a needle in a haystack by evaluating one needle at a time?

    Maybe he could then go on to propose that these people "self-replicate" and create more people to look for the needle? That would make it go faster. However this obviously would cause problems because inevitably they would end up competing for resources or start forming unions to demand that they only need to look at 3 needles at a time.

  33. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who's to say that humans aren't the most advanced civilization out there?

    1. Re:Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If George W. Bush is the President of the United States, then there HAS to be more intelligence out there.

  34. how many colonies of aliens? by trb · · Score: 1

    Am I mistaken, or are this guy's statistics based on there being one other colony of "aliens" in the galaxy? What if there are a hundred colonies or a million? (A recent popular guess for number of starts in the milky way is 100 billion).

  35. this reminds me of Thomas Aquinas by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

    "I think there will be never a quantum theory to prove that the universe is non-deterministic, a perfect case against my God proofs, so hereby I announce that my belief in God is staunch."

    What's common in both viewpoints? Obviously one is real and the other is fictional, but what they have in common is that they both make predictions that we can't possibly do something in the future, so basically assuming no new technologies or scientific understanding.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  36. Self replicating probes?!? by SeePage87 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Terrible idea. The Sylandro had one of them, and look what almost happened! Never trust a Melnorme.

    1. Re:Self replicating probes?!? by pluther · · Score: 1

      Hey now, you can't blame that one on the Melnorme. The Sylandro would have been fine if they'd thought it through a bit before attempting to reprogram the probes.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  37. not only that, but the SETI program hasn't either. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To date, the SETI program (perhaps more familiar to you from the SETI@home distributed searching aspect) hasn't had a single false positive, in the sense of the source turning out on further examination to actually be earth-based. Think about that. In 40 years of searching for extraterrestrial intelligence, they haven't had to rule out a single terrestrial source.

    One can't help but wonder: what exactly could there be for the extraterrestrials to find?

  38. Physics by pbrammer · · Score: 1

    The problem is that these assumptions are based on our (perhaps) flawed-physics knowledge. Our time is not their time. Speed of light could be slow to them. To think that space never ends and what could be out there is mind boggling.

  39. ughh by resignator · · Score: 2

    Speculations like this are complete garbage. Even assuming aliens would have to build a craft to travel here is too much. Who is to say aliens search, travel, or think anything remotely like us? It is like Christopher Columbus saying no one would EVER travel to the moon because sailing there would take more than one person's lifetime.

    --
    "At first, we thought it was just another snake cult."
  40. Why.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the age of the Universe is of the same order, his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet."

    The real question is, why would they discover us?

    If their civilization is like ours, space exploration will take time, resources, and money. With the amount of those resources involved, you'd have to have a really good reason to colonize other solar systems. Sure, aliens might have been around longer than us, and could even be smart than us (maybe), but what makes us think they would want to visit us? We might be so far out of the way and boring that it's not worth it.

  41. Scary by SpeedyGonz · · Score: 2, Funny

    72 probes??? First of all, if you're going to do it that way, you'd create hundreds of thousands of probes, if not millions of probes (mass production would reduce the cost). Second, you still probably wouldn't do it that way. You'd wait until you had the technology to make self-replicating probes, and the galaxy could potentially be explored in thousands of years.

    Hmm . . .

    1.- self replicating probes... check
    2.- enuff "intelligence" to determine something it sees/feels/etc is an actual lifeform... check
    3.- humanity's own history making buggy, security lax software... check
    4.- throw in some polymorphic stuff in the software so the probe can better itself...check
    5.- an "easter egg", timebomb prank from a bender-obsessed hacker (MUST KILL HUMANS)... check

    Possible end result? == The cylons :)

  42. a few points to ponder though by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We are terribly limited by our own ignorance. We barely have an understanding of space travel, dark matter, string theory, time-and-space and many other things. I recall reading something once that said people in the early 20th century believed the human body would shake apart if we traveling faster than 25mph. The knowledge and intelligence of an alien civilization could be so far beyond our comprehension and knowledge that it's almost futile to even speculate. Right now, we think nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, however it wasn't too long ago people also believed the world was flat. I guess we can only make assumptions based on our current knowledge levels, but we must also take into account that there may be ways of doing things that we've simply not discovered yet, or cannot comprehend.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:a few points to ponder though by andyrock · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Even school books had it wrong

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

      "The modern misconception that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat first entered the popular imagination in the nineteenth century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828."

    2. Re:a few points to ponder though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "I recall reading something once that said people in the early 20th century believed the human body would shake apart if we traveling faster than 25mph."

      Men have been riding horses at greater than 40mph since before recorded history. Trains crested the 80mph mark before the US civil war (mid-19th century) and 100mph by the turn of the century.

    3. Re:a few points to ponder though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Agreed. Also, to show just how far down the rung we are, we still can not conscioussly control the biological processes that occur in our body. Buddhist monks seems to be on the right track with regard to internal body temperature vs. external environment...

      I don't think the majority of people have a real concept of true intelligence and control of biological, technological, mechanical, and evolutionary facets of our current and coming existence. I keep seeing and hearing cybernetics is our future, ie. implants, computer assisted enhancements, but genetic improvement and consciouss internal biological control is where my money is at. I still haven't found funding for most of that though...

      Any takers?!?

  43. Nooo... so Roswell in '47 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...really was a hoax ? It can't be... We have belived...

    AAAARRRGGGHHHH!!!

  44. Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by dyslexicbunny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I agree. He's only basing his assumptions on our current capabilities and applying them to an unknown alien civilization. Great that he's making these assumptions but his final conclusion, We have not yet been contacted by any extraterrestrial civilizations simple because they have not yet had the time to find us. Searching the Galaxy for life is a painstakingly slow process., is just jumping to conclusions, perhaps invalid for the work he did.

    No one knows what aliens are going to look for in a planet. Our planet could be written off as an inhabitable nitrous sphere. They might be non-carbon based life forms. They could have progressed technologically much faster than we did as you suggested. By assuming aliens match our capabilities, he made an unstated assumption that was key to actually understanding the conclusion.

    A more fitting conclusion from his work would be that it would take US 10 billion years to search a small portion of the Milky Way for life at our current technology levels.

    1. Re:Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      His whole paper is fantasy. It would be more helpful if his brain power could be used for more important tasks such as how to cure cancer, save the environment, efficient energy storage and so on. As soon as I read about his assumptions about an alien civilization (they will travel at 0.1c, or they will build such and such probes) I completely discarded his argument and his conclusion. Just because he slapped some integrals into the paper does not make his paper credible.

    2. Re:Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by mcguiver · · Score: 1

      Not quite. He is not basing his assumptions on our current capabilities. His assumption that their probes can travel at .1c makes them faster than our probes. There is also no way that our technology could last 10 billion years, most of our space missions have life expectancies less than 10 years (some are longer, but that doesn't make a difference when you compare it to billions of years).

      I will grant that he does make some pretty crazy assumptions, but is findings aren't totally off. Even if a planet were to develop interplanetary travel at the dawn of their civilization that can travel at c while being able to scan entire solar systems on the fly and not needing any repair for the extent of their lives, it is still pretty unlikely that they could have scanned the entire galaxy by this point in time unless they made swarms of the things.

    3. Re:Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It would be more helpful if his brain power could be used for more important tasks such as how to cure cancer, save the environment, efficient energy storage and so on.

      People are not ants. They do what interests them. Your time would be better spent, say, feeding the poor, yet here you are on slashdot.

    4. Re:Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      Well someone has to speak up and stop others from wasting their brain power, slashdot is as good a place as any public forum... yep, just doing humanity a service...

    5. Re:Fine assumptions, poor conclusion by Sun+Rider · · Score: 1

      They might not even be interested in showing up. I remember an old documentary about a researcher in Africa studying gorillas. Did she make contact with the leaders, explained the purpose of her visit, and established a commercial embassy to trade bananas for manufactured products? No, she just stayed out of range first, later got closer to the gorillas in the margins, trying to look familiar to them. Sounds too similar to aliens only talking with marginal, out of the mainstream "contactees".

  45. Meat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're made out of meat?

  46. Shortsighted research by Sefert · · Score: 1

    The idea of even firing someone into space was foreign to us only a century ago. Frankly, I would be stunned if, within the next several thousand years, humanity didn't figure out a way to fold space. There are tons of physicists that work on that type of math already (and higher dimensional math to boot). The geeks at IBM, amongst several other labs worldwide, have already figured out quantum teleportation. http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo/teleportat ion/ Frankly, why would anyone ever even assume that someone would travel in a linear fashion, trundling along from star to star? Of course it's a waste of time and would take billions of years - and to assume that all foreign lifeforms would be restricted to a form of travel that we personally, within only half a century of space flight, could conceive of, is arrogant and shortsighted.

  47. Conclusion by Srsen · · Score: 1

    his conclusion is that aliens can't have had time required to find us yet
    Unless they have smarter astrophysicists.
  48. Actually the cylons will find us first by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We will be in a lot of trouble if the Cylons find us first.

    Actually the "cylons" will find us first, it is far cheaper to send robotic explorers out. Then if anything interesting is found send the "manned" missions.

    1. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by Surt · · Score: 1

      It may be cheaper to send robotic missions, but probably not as much fun. For a race serious about exploring a significant fraction of the galaxy, I doubt if the manned vs unmanned costs are an issue driving the choice of exploration method.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It may be cheaper to send robotic missions, but probably not as much fun. For a race serious about exploring a significant fraction of the galaxy ...

      I'll refer to my second sentence: "Then if anything interesting is found send the "manned" missions." Do you realize how much nothing is out there, where is the "fun" in finding another dead rock just like so many others? Forget the romantic fantasy of spaceflight, it will be uncomfortable, boring, and stressful. With robots doing the scouting there will be a greater number of interesting things for the manned missions to investigate, possible more than could be sent out. Now if manned missions did the initial exploration, the people would largely see nothing of particular interest. I think you are vastly overestimating the novelty of finding another dead rock in space, sure it would interest us, but a generation born after such discoveries become commonplace?

      ... I doubt if the manned vs unmanned costs are an issue driving the choice of exploration method.

      Actually it is a major point of debate, scientists favoring a large number of robotic missions, politicians favoring a handful of manned missions. Manned missions are multiple orders of magnitude more expensive.

    3. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      where is the "fun" in finding another dead rock just like so many others?

      For some geologists, theres lots of fun to be had with yet another dead rock.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    4. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by k.ovaska · · Score: 1

      It may be cheaper to send robotic missions, but probably not as much fun. For a race serious about exploring a significant fraction of the galaxy, I doubt if the manned vs unmanned costs are an issue driving the choice of exploration method.

      It's possible that we eventually develop robots, or artificial intelligence, that are smarter than we are and thus have greater capability to explore space. Similarly, it's reasonable that an alien race does the same and there will be no distinction between "manned" mission and "robotic" mission. An alien race might not be the original biological race but the artificial one. When traveling through space, the A.I. would make it possible for itself to go into hibernation, something that's more difficult for a biological species, although not impossible.

    5. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      We're spending quite a bit of money and effort exploring two nearby "dead rocks". The Moon and Mars (ok, Mars might not be dead.....).

      Layne

    6. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by arth1 · · Score: 1
      It's possible that we eventually develop robots, or artificial intelligence, that are smarter than we are and thus have greater capability to explore space.

      If we ever do, I'm quite certain that we also find a way to interface these robots with humans, to augment ourselves.
      The reasons why space travel is for machines are because of how long it takes, and because of an psychological aversion to risking individual human lives.

      And even if one could reach relativistic speeds where time would pass slower for the traveler, that would also make human communication impossible, as well as risks greater. Hitting a single speck of space dust at .9 c means Game Over.

      Also, having to provide a long term life support system is a killer, in mass and in price. Why send a handful of humans if you can send hundreds of probes for the same price, at less risk? Remember that those funding a mission aren't going themselves, so they have little personal incentive to make it a human.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    7. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      Theoritically speaking, telepathic aliens could explore the entire galaxy for advanced sentient life forms with a single thought, in the time it takes to have that thought.

      An intergalactic psychic search for porn, as sex is generally required for reproduction and the act of publishing media about it, indicates that at least a start has been made on the evolutionary climb to actual intelligence.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    8. Re:Actually the cylons will find us first by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      it will be uncomfortable, boring, and stressful.
      So what you're saying is that it's going to be pretty much like any other job ? I expect the pay is going to suck too ?
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
  49. RTFP by HBI · · Score: 2, Informative

    He covers these issues. The article summary is misleading.

    Self replicating is ruled out due to risk. That sounds fairly silly since computers are computers. They do what we tell them to and not a thing more. But I suppose a few worrywarts are a good thing.

    The number of probes is more like 2.08 million probes, if i'm reading him right, as his simulation was done at 1/260000 scale.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:RTFP by Thuktun · · Score: 1

      Self replicating is ruled out due to risk. That sounds fairly silly since computers are computers. They do what we tell them to and not a thing more. And what we actually instruct them to do is often at variance, sometimes significantly, from what we intend we instruct them to do.
    2. Re:RTFP by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Self replicating is ruled out due to risk. That sounds fairly silly since computers are computers. They do what we tell them to and not a thing more.

      That's the problem. Computers do what we say, not what we mean.

    3. Re:RTFP by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Computers do what we say, not what we mean.

      Anyone remember Star Control II ?

      "We come in peace." ... 2 seconds later, the Slylandro probe starts trying to disassemble your spaceship and use it as raw materials.

  50. They... by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    ... are already here

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  51. I call BS by Spazmania · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you've ever played "Spaceward Ho" you'll recognize that the author has proposed an asinine strategy for exploring the galaxy. Indeed, if you try to play Spaceward Ho by that sort of probing you'll rapidly get your tail kicked.

    A more rational approach is exponential: You colonize a solar system. Then from that system you launch probes at anything reachable. Then you colonize everything reachable that qualifies. Rinse and repeat.

    The main disc of the galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. Assume 10% light speed for probe travel time, light speed for information return and 50 years for each new colony to build infrastructure to a point where they can launch probes. You'd have 90% of the galaxy explored in three or four million years -- almost 4 orders of magnitude less than this fellow's estimate.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  52. Or better yet by uerunner · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has read War of the Worlds know that the tiny microbes will protect us.

  53. Just ask the Melnorme... by Junta · · Score: 1

    About Probe model 2418-B...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  54. Ten Billion Years by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

    Just because our planet has evolved the way it did doesn't mean that any other random planet that contains intelligent life evolved the same way. Assuming the vagueness of "ten billion years" is even remotely close to the available time for a species to evolve into a space traveling culture I would say there's actually a pretty good possibility that one of them is moving about the Universe at a rather quick pace. Hell, look at our own damn planet! We have cultures that are walking on the Moon, and cultures who don't even use the wheel. If you use that same comparison and place Earthlings at the wheel state then another planet far far away is zipping around at Warp, or spinning up their FTL, or jumping into worm holes, or constructing jump gates to enter hyperspace, or whatever Sci-Fi expression of extreme space travel you prefer. Or maybe there's one of each! Or maybe there is no other intelligent life anywhere in the entire universe, and never will be until we colonize it.

    There's a lot out there that we don't know anything about.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Ten Billion Years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We have cultures that are walking on the Moon, and cultures who don't even use the wheel.
      Tell me more about this "the wheel".
  55. aliens among us by sulfur_lad · · Score: 1

    Rasmus Bjoerk obviously hasn't met half of my ex-girlfriends. Not even probing allowed me to understand what the heck was going on there.

  56. Probably? by kmhebert · · Score: 1

    Oh.... we've found you, all right....

    --
    Regular Meta Moderators are not more likely to get mod points.
  57. Have you Read the Ring of Charon? by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

    The book does touch that point. Actually this novel and its sequel "The Shattered Sphere" would make a great mini series. Let's hope they haven't found us already and are just sleeping in the solar system. ;)

    --
    I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
  58. Just reported... by grumpyman · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on, they haven't visited us yet? There were yet another case of alien abduction as reported by the World's Weekly last week.

    1. Re:Just reported... by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      I understand more than 4% of Americans believe they have already recieved an anal probe!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    2. Re:Just reported... by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      I just looked at the online Weekly World News, and got lost trying to find the "Hillary Names Bigfoot As Her Running Mate" story. Guess I'll have to subscribe.

  59. They already found us... by jo42 · · Score: 1

    ...and they high-tailed it out of here when they saw the kind of idjits we elect to government.

  60. why bother with this place? by wardk · · Score: 1

    why would any self-respecting advanced civization want to hang out in this trailer trash area of the universe?

  61. Don't forget the singularity by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    More likely, the time it takes for a species to self-evolve beyond comprehension is much less than developing interstellar travel.

    Why would super-intelligent quarks need to physically move themselves to another part of the galaxy? Better view?

    1. Re:Don't forget the singularity by gr8dude · · Score: 1

      Why so? It could be the other way around - colonizing space brings the raw materials and the experience needed to stimulate self-evolution and eventually reach singularity.

      Our current level of technological development does not allow us to estimate accurately which of these objectives (singularity vs space colonization) is more complex.

  62. The article assumes... by Eric+Damron · · Score: 1

    The article seems to assume that we are representative of all intelligent races and there for it would take the length of time that he puts forth.

    As long as we're speculating let me. Maybe of all the intelligent races we are retards. Look at what we're doing to our own planet.

    Maybe they found us a long time ago but don't want to make contact with retards like us.

    --
    The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    1. Re:The article assumes... by TobascoKid · · Score: 1

      Maybe of all the intelligent races we are retards. Look at what we're doing to our own planet.

      Maybe we're the smart ones. Even with fairly favourable conditions, it still took 4 billion years to evolve a single (semi) intelligent species. It took almost 3 1/2 billion years just to get beyond the slime mold stage.

      What if most of the life in the Galaxy is still little more than slime mold?

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
  63. It has been done already by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The aliens knew they could not send out probes that carry enough energy to beam back the information. So they built generalized adaptive Turing machines, (a machine that can build itself) of incredibly small dimension. They created billions and billions of these machines and scattered them. These machines are so tiny, they get carried by the solar wind and other cosmic radiation.

    One of these Turing machines reached Earth about 4 billion years ago. It first had to start by building very simple amino acids, then it graduated to proteins, then to RNA and then to DNA, and then these DNA machines built bodies around them and started using natural selection to evolve into more and more capable organisms. The final aim of these DNA structures is to build powerful radio beacons and send the information back to the original aliens who created these molecules and scattered them to the (solar) wind.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It has been done already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You got it figured out!, almost, but the ultimate goal is not to beam back information, earth is merely a transition for further exploration and colonization.

      If we one day will colonize other planetery systems, we will first and foremost prove that its possible, and if it is possible, odds are that we were not the first to do it, but rather a subject to it.

    2. Re:It has been done already by btempleton · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have confused a Turing machine (which is an idealized model of a computation device) with a Von Neumann self-replicating machine.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    3. Re:It has been done already by double07 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like an interesting theory. But it would make me wonder who (or what) created the original beings?

    4. Re:It has been done already by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

      I was shooting for funny. Got insightful. Shows how difficult comedy is.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  64. prime directive by duranaki · · Score: 1

    given all the previous arguments about the exponential abilities of self-replicating probes, i'll just ignore the billions of years theory proposed by this "researcher".

    besides.. aliens have clearly found us and decided to stay the *&@#! clear.

    Haxor: why can't we go visit that pretty blue planet?
    Blixan: prime directive, ensign! avoid interaction with primitive species. interaction includes detection. if they even know we are out there, we will have affected their society.
    Haxor: aww. but they seem so nice.

  65. do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by gelfling · · Score: 2, Insightful

    IT's not the ACCELERATION, it's the DECELERATION. Even if you could apply some force to slowly accelerate a massive space ship, once you got it up to that speed wouldn't it take K^2 (squared) units of fuel to slow it down it again? So let's say it takes a million tons of some super fuel to get your space ark up to speed. Wouldn't it take a million million tons to park it again?

    1. Re:do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by theGreater · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it would take substantially less as you've already shed a lot of mass, AKA superfuel. So you wouldn't accelerate halfway and decelerate halfway, you'd accelerate 2/3 and decelerate 1/3. Or something like that -- someone better at the various calculus-based disciplines than me might be able to give a better ballpark.

    2. Re:do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er.. no? If it takes K units of fuel to increase your velocity by a certain amount, it'll take K units of fuel to decrease your velocity by that same amount.

    3. Re:do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by Kuciwalker · · Score: 1

      Deploy a solar sail as a sort of parachute. Space isn't a vacuum, it's just very, very sparse.

    4. Re:do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      F=m*a

      I see nothing in there that indicates slowing down takes more energy than speeding up.

    5. Re:do the physics, it's about DE-celeration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't you somehow use the gravity of celestial objects to slow you down? Maybe something like using gravity to transfer energy between the spaceship and a comet.

  66. noncreative solution? by emagery · · Score: 1
    I have a few problems with this;
    • What about von neumann self-replicating drones... exponential exploration?
    • What about selective exploration--increasingly discriminative explorations based on increased knowledge of galaxy?
    • What about remote spectroscopic exploration to isolate stars and planets with the most likely atmospheric make-ups for life? (we're already doing this slightly)
    • What about listening for life--consider the fact that we've bathed some 14000 star systems (within 100LY) with unnatural radio waves?
    • Does this guy allow for technological advancement at all?
      • But then again, the world is flat and man has never flown, has (s)he? Grin
  67. Arrogant presumptions by opieum · · Score: 1

    The scientist makes an arrogant assumption based on OUR level of technology. Another race may have much more sophisticated and advanced tech and ergo be able to find us much faster. We could be watched at this point and not even know it. It may take US 10 billion years if you base this conclusion on the current state of technology. But other breakthroughs and new inventions can eventually trump this. It is another case of Science stating that the world is flat so to speak. The idea that it must be true until proven wrong. Science is not an exact science. A scientist saying things are a certain way based on a theory cannot be right until the theory is proven true and absolutely correct. This declaration is no different. At this point it is just a theory and opinion.

    1. Re:Arrogant presumptions by TobascoKid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A scientist saying things are a certain way based on a theory cannot be right until the theory is proven true and absolutely correct

      Theories are rarely (if ever) "proven to be true" as it's a lot easier to show that something is false rather than absolutely 100% true and correct. Science is more about finding the best model to fit the data than a quest for certainty. Even experiments don't prove theories, they just add to the evidence that a model is the best explanation for a certain phenomenon.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
  68. Heh indeed by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    It's worth noting that about as many people in the US believe there are extraterrestrials who have visited us as consider themselves to be devout Christians.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Heh indeed by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that about as many people in the US believe there are extraterrestrials who have visited us as consider themselves to be devout Christians.
        Amazing, isn't it? I can't believe we still have so many Christians in this day and age...
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  69. Eat at Earth by Dareth · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are currently broadcasting the galactic equivalent of "Eat at Earth" sign. Remember we consume "lesser" lifeforms for food. I do love a good steak! Who knows if the aliens who find Earth will consider us as equals or as appetizers.

    I am sure their galactic physicians will recommend they don't eat too many humans from the Northwestern Continent due to cholesterol or something, but that they can eat all the yellow humans from the east they want, even if they will be hungry again in a few parsecs.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
    1. Re:Eat at Earth by Bandman · · Score: 1

      I think parsecs are measurements of distance, but still +1 funny if I had mod points

    2. Re:Eat at Earth by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      Thats because we're made out of meat!

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    3. Re:Eat at Earth by linuxguy1454 · · Score: 1

      Not to worry. "Keep Out" signs have been posted out there because earthlings are such a barbaric breed and they don't want anything to do with us.

    4. Re:Eat at Earth by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      An alien race that required hunting food on planets many light years distant would probably become extinct well before they learned to travel.

      You are safe, mainly because you are more expensive than truffles. But of course, if there were a very decadent advanced alien race that was really into the status of eating very expensive food items, you would be more likely to be eaten because you are more expensive than truffles.

      So, let's just say, we should all hope that aliens are advanced Liberals, rather than decadent, Conservatives in decline. I'm just making this point as an empirical observation. That it is also a huge target for a flame war is merely a coincidence.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    5. Re:Eat at Earth by Kineel · · Score: 1

      Actually you have it backwards. They did arrive here already, but it was about 70 million years ago, and they got eaten by the dinosaurs, and maybe Fred Flintstone.

      --
      -- Should there be smoke coming out of my CPU?
    6. Re:Eat at Earth by arth1 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I think parsecs are measurements of distance, but still +1 funny if I had mod points

      Unless these alieens are doing the Kessel Run, of course.

      Regards,
      --
      *Art
    7. Re:Eat at Earth by subtilior · · Score: 1

      Hmmm in my experience, it is the liberals that are into displays of conspicuous consumption - driving expensive hybrids, eating organic food, etcetera. Conservatives tend to be frugal, hard working, God fearing types - the kind who give to charity, rather than voting in governments who pretend to help the poor, but end up helping themselves

    8. Re:Eat at Earth by mok000 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's exactly right. One parsec is the distance at which the diameter of the earth's orbit around the sun (1 AU) appears to be 1 sec (=1/360 of a degree).

    9. Re:Eat at Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is too ethnocentric to really be funny. i'm surprised it got a 5

    10. Re:Eat at Earth by nebosuke · · Score: 2, Informative

      1 AU is the mean radius of the earth's orbit, not the diameter.

    11. Re:Eat at Earth by darklordyoda · · Score: 2, Informative

      I thought the Kessel Run was measured in distance because the Run involved skimming very close to a cluster of black holes, and thus only the boldest would dare to take a shorter route...


      *takes pleasure in fact I'm still at least above Trekkies on the geek hierarchy*

    12. Re:Eat at Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that is too ethnocentric to really be funny. i'm surprised it got a 5

      Apparently a few mods disagree with you. I didn't think it was funny either, but not because of the Northwestern slur.

    13. Re:Eat at Earth by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Or maybe George Lucas doesn't know what a parsec is.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    14. Re:Eat at Earth by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Hmm, but there have been lots of examples in human history where very distant lands were conquered, and their inhabitants killed or enslaved by a marginally more sophisticated civilisation.

      I think the mistake is to look at rationality of imperialism from the perspective of the whole civilisation rather than from the conquistadors. E.g. Spain and England may not have have made a profit from their empires, but the people that ruled them did, and so did the people who did the conquering. The masses back home, who actually made a net loss can be told that the invasion benefits them indirectly, by spreading their culture and religion, securing resources etc. And having an external enemy helps keep the people at home in line. Essentially, the ruling class of the country gets subsidisied by the masses to expand their control over new territory, and can use the threat of an external enemy to gain more control back home.

      I always thought the aliens in V could plausibly be motivated by something like this, even if travelling 8.7 light years for water doesn't make much sense economically.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    15. Re:Eat at Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (-1, ridiculous stereotypes)

    16. Re:Eat at Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we in the west baist in our own juices provided you make sure we are wrapped in foil before throwing us in the oven

  70. Which OS? by videoBuff · · Score: 1

    10 billion years for search sounds about right, if ET uses Windows or Java.

  71. Self replicating probles will doom us ... by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'd hold off on criticizing others for a lack of imagination. Don't you realize that self replicating probes will doom us? We will be galactic spammers, the aliens will wipe us out as a nuisance. Or our probes will harvest the planet they pray towards, the aliens will wipe us out as heretics and blasphemers. At a very minimum the probes will be crossing the border without proper documentation, the fines and impound fees could leave us in "debtors prison" for millennia.

  72. Who says they haven't been past already? by Huntred · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They could have swept by, mapped the planet fully, dropped to look around, grabbed some soil samples wrote their catalog entry, and left to the next one during 99.9% of human history and we wouldn't have noticed.

    Outside of human history - which is just a sliver of whole earthtime - there has been a lot of time on this planet where not much was going on, intelligence-wise. "We've found another planet of ferns, sir."

    Or they could just not be particularly impressed with us. We seem to behave as though we are certain that we are best-looking girl in school so any available boy who doesn't ask us out must be gay or afraid. Take a look around - as a species we fight and squabble endlessly over dirt, water, bizarre ideas and myths. The top quarter of the race could give a crap that the bottom quarter endlessly suffers and dies when there's plenty of food and cures around for all. Maybe instead of sweeping in as benevolent parents to uplift us, they just see us as yet another batch of troublemakers who would not make good company. Above all, a people who definitely do not need a warp drive to take our ways on tour. To them, we could be just another example of a type that either grows out of this stage or eventually kills itself off. When we're worth talking to - and far less likely to shoot them or other folks - they may decloak/pull off their masks/come back.

    Huntred

  73. It's not that hard by israel_zayas · · Score: 1

    Got to get started on Jump gate technology... Can't travel to the Rim in regular space...

  74. hmm. isn't pot legal in denmarK? by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    What's this guy smoking? hasen't he heard of the "String Theory"? Maybe the aliens all ready found a way
    to fold space/time and jump through a singularity.
    LMFAO!

  75. An argument why it's not possible by Myria · · Score: 1

    What is the probability that we are the first intelligent species in the galaxy? It's vanishingly small. Therefore, if galactic colonization were possible, it's most likely that Earth would've been colonized already.

    It's similar to the argument that time travel is impossible: if time travel is possible, then why haven't we seen any time travelers?

    Yes, there are other possible solutions to these questions, but it's interesting to think about.

    --
    "Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
    1. Re:An argument why it's not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is it just that we don`t see the obvious, that we are the colony, unconciously seeking to colonize further. Wouldn`t suprise me that genetics discover a "Made in Andromeda" label in our DNA someday.

    2. Re:An argument why it's not possible by Teancum · · Score: 1

      If you are refering to the "Drake Equations" about the likelihood of extra-terrestrial life in the Milky Way, that certainly is something that is debateable. There is no reasonable way to form a scientific hypothesis based on a statistical sample of one.

      If we ever find even life that didn't originate on the Earth (or wasn't cross contaminated with life spores from the Earth.... aka Mars and going back), it will be considerably easier to try and come up with some valid scientific theories about what the actual likelyhood would be that we might just be the first technological lifeform to have ever developed capable of spaceflight.

      About the only significant progress that has been made on the Drake Equation in recent years is that we are getting closer to being able to determine what the liklihood of finding a terrestrial (aka rock-like planet like we are living on right now) planet would be around a typical star, and what kinds of stars are likly to have planets at all.

      There are other factors that are not included in the standard Drake Equation that may actually significantly reduce the number of candidate stars in our galaxy. Most notably that I've seen is the possibility that the star (aka our Sun) needs to be in a nearly circular orbit around the galactic center, in order to avoid the lethally hazardous environment of being near the galactic core. Our Sun is in one of these nearly circular orbits, and is in a region of the galaxy that also is rich in many metals, particularly heavier metals like iron, and even uranium. The time to have enough stars that have gone Supernova in order to build up enough metalic components sufficient to have an iron-core planet like the Earth is not an insignificant amount of time. In fact, it could be argued that the Earth is just old enough (and our Sun old enough) that we may be living on one of the first planets to have this unique blend of environment and minerals capable of spaceflight, or even having intelligent life at all.

      Add all of that to the very unique evoluntionary path our species has taken, and it is remarkable that we even exist at all. While there is evidence that other intelligent species do exist here on the Earth, and may have in the past, they are not technological nor capable of building a spacecraft to even give the possibility of getting to another stellar system. I just don't see dolphins building spacecraft except in a Douglas Adams novel.

  76. Wrong in just 3422 days! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I happen to know for a fact that they will be here in 3422 days, so this author is obviously an idiot and I can't wait to see how he revises his thesis when they land in Nevada.

  77. obligatory STAR CONTROL reference by ClioCJS · · Score: 1
    We come in peace.

    Prepare to be broken down into your component compounds.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  78. Cassini speed wrong by dsanfte · · Score: 1, Informative

    Plus, Cassini isn't travelling nearly that fast. 30km/s, not 30,000. That's 1/10000th of c.

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    1. Re:Cassini speed wrong by Nutria · · Score: 1
      Plus, Cassini isn't travelling nearly that fast. 30km/s, not 30,000. That's 1/10000th of c.

      Nowhere in the article or the post you are replying to does it say that Cassini is traveling at 30,000km/s. TFA specifically says:

      Nasa's current Cassini mission to Saturn is plodding along at 32km a second
      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:Cassini speed wrong by dsanfte · · Score: 1
      Would you care to check the post I was replying to again? It quoted the following as being from TFA:

      He found that even if the alien ships could hurtle through space at a tenth of the speed of light, or 30,000km a second
      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    3. Re:Cassini speed wrong by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Dude, get yourself another cup of coffee or something. The next part of the sentence you quote says "NASA's current Cassini mission to Saturn is plodding along at 32km a second". The 30,000km is talking about a theoretical alien probe, not Cassini.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:Cassini speed wrong by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      Bah you're right. Sorry.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  79. Ehhh... by fastcoke11 · · Score: 1

    I think there's a big assumption out there that aliens are only a couple hundred years beyond us, when in reality they could be millions of years beyond us in evolutionary terms and technology. So I doubt the ability of an astrophysicist to legitimately and accurately be able to determine the capabilities of an alien civilization with even so much as 1 billion years of advancement ahead of human civilization. Think of where we are now with our "understanding" of physics and the universe, and how far we will be if we continue to move forward (although granted, there are many forces out there that, for some reason, want to stop us from furthering human civilization) for say... 10 million years? Sorry, not buying his theory.

  80. Msg to Zornak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cover story in place. Fnord.

  81. These are NOT self-replicating probes by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This work is irrelevant to the Fermi paradox since Fermi assumed the probes would replicate themselves. Here is what Bjork says about self-replication:

    In fact if self-replicating probes, or von Neumann probes as they are also termed, were used to explore the Galaxy it has been shown that a search of the entire Galaxy will take 4 106 3 108 years dependent on the speed of the probes (Tipler 1980). This is much faster than using the non-replicative probes proposed in this paper. However, one should note that there could be complications with using self-replicating probes. Tipler (1980) himself points out that the program controlling the self-replicating probes would have to have so high an intelligence that it might "go into business for itself" and become out of control of the humans who designed it, resulting in unforeseeable consequences. Since the machines uses the same resources as humans, a self-replicating machine might regards humans as competitors and try to exterminate them. Chyba (2005) also points out that self-replicating probes-might evolve to prey on each other, creating a sort of machine food-chain. This would of cause drastically reduce their exploration rate. Therefore the conclusion is that if perfect selfreplicating probes could be built, these could explore the Galaxy much faster than the probes suggested here. However, building less-then-perfect self-replicating probes could, in the worst case scenario, have fatal consequences for the human race.

    I think the real debate should be about self-replicating probes. Is the author assuming that every civilization capable of building these is automatically freaked out by potential doomsday scenarios, to the extent that none will be built? Even if it is foolish, I found that it pays to expect more foolishness in the universe rather than less.

  82. Snuh? by spun · · Score: 1

    Even if you could apply some force to slowly accelerate a massive space ship, once you got it up to that speed wouldn't it take K^2 (squared) units of fuel to slow it down it again?

    Say what? Where'd you get the idea that it takes more fuel to slow down than to speed up? Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, change in delta-v.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Snuh? by forkazoo · · Score: 1
      Even if you could apply some force to slowly accelerate a massive space ship, once you got it up to that speed wouldn't it take K^2 (squared) units of fuel to slow it down it again?

      Say what? Where'd you get the idea that it takes more fuel to slow down than to speed up? Acceleration and deceleration are the same thing, change in delta-v.


      I think I get what he means -- every pound of fuel you use to slow down means an extra pound of mass that you need to accelerate in the first place. (Which takes more fuel to do the initial acceleration.) So, yeah, they are the same thing, but your total required fuel does grow explosively from the bulk of all the other fuel you need to use.
    2. Re:Snuh? by spun · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know, after I posted this, I thought that must be what he meant. But his math is still way, way off.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:Snuh? by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      Yeah but he has it the wrong way round. He should have said : "So let's say it takes a million million tons of some super fuel to get your space ark up to speed. Wouldn't it take a million tons to park it again?"

      There'd be less mass to decelerate - considerably more mass to accelerate.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
  83. What about other civilizations? by edbob · · Score: 1

    The article seems to assume that alien civilizations are looking just for us. A more interesting line of thought (at least to me) would be how likely it would be for these civilizations to find each other. It is quite likely that there are other places in the galaxy in which two civilizations are within close proximity -- possibly within the same solar system. For example, if Mars had an advanced civilization similar to our own we would have discovered this back in the 70's. Also, this search for "civilization" strikes me as being a tad Earth-centric. More than likely a alien race would have a concept of civilization radically different from our own. We would not be able to understand them, nor they us (and I'm not just talking language barrier here). We may not even recognize it as intelligence.

  84. Because by dosle · · Score: 1

    Because you and I are here , I know there are others elsewhere. They might not be on the interwebs (yet) but they are out there.

  85. Amazing lack of thought by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

    I am surprised at how many comments there are dimissing this paper as using poor assumptions, being poorly thought out or lacking imagination.

    First, why should we assume that the aliens would have god-like technology? The paper addresses a 1000x increase in speed for the probes and assumes they would incredibly well-engineered to not fail after thousands or millions of years. That seems like pretty advanced technology. I don't know of anything that we have built that would last 1000 years without some sort of maintenance or intervention. Sure, we could assume there are repair systems on board, but what repairs the repair system? Even if we ignore that, where does it get the materials to make repairs if something happens between solar systems?

    Second, why would there be an urge to send thousands or millions of these probes? If the probes are going to be strong enough to survive, smart enough to avoid problems during the trip and detect any signs of intelligence/civilization they are probably fairly expensive and difficult to make. Sure, we can imagine a technological society where manufacturing is automated to the point where robots land on an asteroid, mine it, construct factories and shiny new probes are made, but this assumes a very high level of technology. While we may have an idea how to do it, we are absolutely nowhere near the technology required to actually do it.

    Finally, remember that all solar systems aren't on a nice straight line and that you would actually have to maneuver to go near them and check for signs of civilization. Sure, we could fix that by using many more probes, but see paragraph #2. There is also some diminishing returns with this approach. You could make enough probes so there is 1 per solar system, but having half that many that steer slightly to visit 2 systems is probably cheaper. So, imagine all the acceleration that needs to occur for this to occur - which means more fuel and a lot of time spent at lower velocities.

    Instead of pointing to video games or science fiction shows for the "right way" to do this, how about applying some real-world assumptions? I mean assuming that the aliens exist in the first place, (although it seems likely), have god-like tech and FTL, and would want to devote all of their resources to searching the galaxy seems pretty unreasonable to me. However, having moderately better tech and devoting a moderate amount of resources (in the number of probes) seems like reasonable assumptions to me.

    --
    Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    1. Re:Amazing lack of thought by Teancum · · Score: 1
      I don't know of anything that we have built that would last 1000 years without some sort of maintenance or intervention. Sure, we could assume there are repair systems on board, but what repairs the repair system? Even if we ignore that, where does it get the materials to make repairs if something happens between solar systems?


      When you are talking about things that have lasted but have been built more than 1000 years ago, I can think of mainly only two types of "human artifacts" that apply:

      1) Things so simple that they don't need repairs. That would be like coins, pottery, or other very basic "machines" like ramps, levers, wheels, etc.
      2) Simply massive buildings, most notably pyramids. They have survived wars and dense jungle growth (especially in southern Mexico). The pyramids in Giza (Egypt) certainly fit the class as one of the very oldest of all human artifacts that has enough complexity to show it was created not just by people but also by an organized and technologically inclined civilization. While it might be an interesting theoretical exercise, I think a pyramid might just survive a thermo-nuclear detonation. How many human artifacts do you know that can do that? About the only thing they can't survive is a million tourists from Europe and America trying to cart pieces of it back to their "home".

      As far as repairing these probes, there is one repair system that would work after 1000 years to provide continuous maintainence: Manned spaceflight. I'm not saying that the issues are trivial, and this would imply some sort of generation ship construction, but it is somthing that in theory could be done to facilitate repairs over a very long period of time. Again, Cathedrals in Europe and even some large public clocks (to give an example of a mechanical device that might be comparable to a space probe) have been kept in working order for hundreds of years, if not close to 1000 years. It is at least a possibility in the regard that these devices certainly have been maintained for that length of time.

      Frankly, I think there would be /. readers who would be willing to get on one of these generation ships (with appropriate companionship of the opposite sex) if they knew their grandkids would get the opportunity to set foot on a planet that orbits another stellar system than the Earth. Not millions of people, perhaps, but enough that it wouldn't be a problem trying to find volunteers.
    2. Re:Amazing lack of thought by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      I agree with your 2 categories of artifacts that could last that long. I should have added "non-trivial" to the description.

      The problem with using people as the repair system on the ship is that they will still need infrastructure to work with. While we can keep large clocks in service, we need a machine shop, (or Ye Olde Blacksmith shop), to construct any parts or at least as the source of the material to make the parts. If they need materials, they rely on smelters, which rely on mines, etc. You can add redundancy to the system but, as things wear, spare parts run out. Imagine the size of a ship that would include an entire infrastructure.

      Additionally, we can't be sure that the people themselves would survive the trip. We know, for humans, that there are side-effects from extended periods in low gravity plus there is the risk from radiation. While we can't guess as to the genetic makeup of any aliens, humans would need a large population, probably hundreds, to be genetically viable over even a few generations. To colonize a planet we would want thousands of people to ensure there was enough genetic diversity. Now the colonization ship would have to be monstrous, millions of tons at least, which would mean it is a LOT harder to accelerate to any meaningful velocity.

      I agree that there would be enough volunteers for a one-way trip but being able to actually send the volunteers, and have them arrive in good health, would be the hard part.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
  86. firm belief... by Sfing_ter · · Score: 1

    i firmly believe they have been here, seen us and decided we were definitely not worth a laser shot; they probably beam our escapades to intelligent life forms in the universe as "high comedy"; they're all just waiting and betting on when the end will take place.

    --
    A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
    1. Re:firm belief... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      You should read the Armageddon trilogy by Robert Rankin, where one of the books reveal that yes, the world is really the set of a TV soap opera that is immensely popular, where the script writer is this God fellow that's gone missing and Jesus' sister is very pissed off that she never got a proper part. And it features Elvis running around together with a time traveling sprout fighting the antichrist.

  87. They have found us. by vimh42 · · Score: 1

    I read a comic that said somehthing along the lines of "I think the surest sign that there is intellegent life out there is that none have tried to contact us."

  88. How can this be true if aliens put us here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found in google news...
    Scientists find Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA
    http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/20 07/01/08/01288.html

  89. Probe Droid? by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2, Funny
    I can just imagine the conversation in the ET's 'mission control' -

    I think we've got something, sir. The report is only a fragment from a probe droid in the sol system, but it's the best lead we've had.

    We have thousands of probe droids searching the galaxy. I want proof, not leads!

    The visuals indicate life readings.

    It could mean anything. If we followed every lead...

    But, sir, the sol system is supposed to be devoid of humaoid forms.

    That's it. The humans are there.

    There are so many uncharted worlds...

    That is the system! Set your course for the sol system. General, prepare your men!

  90. Slylandro Probes by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

    Those Slylandro can be a real pain in the rear though. "We come in peace". BLAM!

  91. Good lord! by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

    A link to an actual scientific paper in a Slashdot summary? What is the world coming to?

  92. Why about self-replication? by benhocking · · Score: 3, Informative
    FTFPDF:

    One could also contemplate the idea of launching selfreplicating probes i.e. probes that are able to build copies of themselves by harvesting materials from each stellar system they pass.

    The construction of such probes are technologically as difficult as producing the conventional probes proposed to be used to explore the Galaxy, as these conventional probes must operate for millions, if not billions, of years. Therefore one can argue that self-replicating probes should instead be used to explore the Galaxy, as using such probes will lead to much faster exploration times, as the number of probes increase as time goes by.

    In fact if self-replicating probes, or von Neumann probes as they are also termed, were used to explore the Galaxy it has been shown that a search of the entire Galaxy will take 4 10^6 3 10^8 years dependent on the speed of the probes (Tipler 1980). This is much faster than using the non-replicative probes proposed in this paper.
    So, if they figure out how to use self-replicating probes, the entire galaxy could be probed in 4 Myr - 300 Myr. I suspect solving that technological problem would be a worthwhile investment.
    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:Why about self-replication? by EugeneK · · Score: 0

      I like that idea; the problem is where to find the material to self-replicate, considering how tiny the likelyhood is that a probe will encounter an asteroid or planet or any solid matter that could be used as raw materials.

    2. Re:Why about self-replication? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Small? The goal of the probes is to go to stars that are good candidates for life, which means you would pick stars with planets. We can already detect those now with our current instruments, so it is no big stretch to think a much more advanced probe could as well. Thus the probe would at every destination it arrives at have planets to gather material from.

    3. Re:Why about self-replication? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that's far too much engineering.

      Older calculations where a multi-generation ship went to a star, colonized it, then gave a thousand years to grow the civilization until it could sent out more colonization ships gave a result on the order of millions to tens of millions of years to colonize the galaxy. But this relies on exponential growth, not speed of exploration or "turnaround".

      This guy uses the same finite set of probes to do the searching. He might as well have simply calculated the average distance between the stars in his "Galactic Habitable Zone", then divided by the number of probes. As he points out, you can neglect the time to move a probe to "its own zone", or group of stars, to explore.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:Why about self-replication? by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 1

      The self-replicating space probes were created by man...

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    5. Re:Why about self-replication? by rhyder128k · · Score: 1

      Another of these hypothetical projects that works like: (?-?)x(?+?*?)/?=? As none of the variables can be accurately guessed at, I don't see the point. Perhaps instant teleportation will be solves next year for all we know. Remote viewing of some kind would also ruin the equation. A 17th century philosopher might have a go at calculating the typical layout of a 21st urban area by working out a typical reasonable distance that a person could commute each day on horseback.

      --
      Michael Reed, freelance tech writer.
    6. Re:Why about self-replication? by scervisiae · · Score: 1

      The article shocked me because 10 billion years is a lot longer than I had previously been lead to believe. The key difference is that the article models exploration using non-self-replicating probes. It would be a lot faster with self-replicating probes, even if the rate of self-replication is very slow. One may imagine colonists as biological self-replicating probes.

    7. Re:Why about self-replication? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      The self-replicating space probes were created by man... You just gave me a new idea to get religion to boost NASA's funding. How about "Man was created by God so they could peacefully colonize and explore the universe for Him"?
      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    8. Re:Why about self-replication? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe you could construct an argument that "fill the earth and subdue it" is actually a mistranslation, instead of "earth" it should read "universe" ...

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Why about self-replication? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > Remote viewing of some kind would also ruin the equation.

      Actually, I recall a suggestion that using your own star as a gravitational lense would allow you to see a license plate on other planets in our galaxy, and continents on planets in other galaxies. While difficult, if the speed of light is truly insurmountable, our technology will get to the level capable of this within a few hundred years tops, if not today already (we already have limited intraplanetary and space station capability as well as dynamic lens distortion, which could be used to overcome gravitational differences and time lags going around different sides of the sun. Hell, it would be trivial as you already have the star you can use as a focus object.)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    10. Re:Why about self-replication? by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's a pretty cool idea for a SciFi race: They temporarily colonize solar systems on their multi-million year quest to explore the galaxy, not realizing that - since they haven't had real contact with the homeworld they're sending the data back to for millennia - their homeworld has gone through several rather violent wars and there's nobody who cares about the data they send back anymore, effectively turning their ten thousands of moving colonies into one enormous fool's errand.

      Science Fiction has numerous instances of "how do we tell them that $DRAMATIC_TRUTH", but $DRAMATIC_TRUTH = "since N thousand years their entire way of life has been a complete waste of time" would be somewhat refreshing.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    11. Re:Why about self-replication? by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      They evolved.

  93. No time travels then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn. Other civilizations have not invented a time machine then or else they could jump back from the future to find us here.

    On another note, I guess it's pointless now to stand on the roof waving a flag trying to catch the attention of the aliens. Now I can sleep at night without worry that I miss an alien probe.

  94. About the whole age of the Galaxy and all that by wellingj · · Score: 1

    Has any one ever given thought to what if WE are the first advanced race?
    I mean how old is our planet and life on it compared to the Galaxy?
    We have had a fair number of mass extinctions but over all I'd say we've been pretty lucky.

  95. _We_ are the probes by ajedgar · · Score: 1

    Hence our inate desire to find the _source_.

  96. Ships passing in the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is another problem at work here, which I don't believe has yet been mentioned (apologies if it has). Since we have little hard evidence of the conditions of every other part of the universe, we have very little idea about what kinds of life might appear. It's certainly possible that a high-tech alien race has evolved and made it as far as Earth. It is equally possible that such a race is so fundamentally different from us, requiring an environment completely at odds with our own to survive, that they took one glance at the planet and said "Dead end. No life is possible in such a place."

    And that assumes such life operates in the exact reality in which we operate. They might pass right through the planet, not even realizing it's there, as they search for whatever it is hyper-intelligent neutrinos look for. The real odds we need to consider are those of a species like our own developing interstellar travel, and for that thought experiment, we are the only evidence to work with. In that case, using our own knowledge of technology is not a bad place to start.

  97. In other news by cydnub · · Score: 1

    Lewis and Clark reported that since it took them 18 months to cover 3352 square miles (assuming 1/2 mile on each side of the river over the journey), it would take about 23 THOUSAND YEARS to cover the 52 million square miles of land on Earth, not counting Antarctica.

  98. Space by certel · · Score: 1

    That Cassini spacecraft is moving at 71581.9613 miles per hour. Not bad...

  99. Indirect Observation by drinkmorejava · · Score: 1

    I haven't RTFA, but if they're looking for an "intelligent" civilization, a probe visiting every planet would be completely unnecessary. They'd only have to be close enough to detect radio transmissions. Assuming their equipment could detect the faintest of signals, and the first regular high powered transmissions occurred 80-90 years ago, that's enormous compared to finding a single planet.

  100. Hurry to find a space ghetto? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I haven't 'found' that ant hive in my backyard yet either.

  101. I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why dont we just take that rail gun the navy is testing up to space and fling some probes one after the other 10 miles apart from each other and "daisy chain" their signals so we can get the data back quicker.

    Just an idea

  102. self replicating machines will inevitably evolve. by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Self replicating is ruled out due to risk. That sounds fairly silly since computers are computers. They do what we tell them to and not a thing more. Every copy of something introduces error. The instant you introduce a physical replicating system in the real world you also introduce evolution. At which point it stops working for you and starts working for itself.

    Von Neumann machines will colonize the galaxy in direct competition with the species creating them, they won't explore for them.

    --
    Deleted
  103. Tangent by tshak · · Score: 1

    because the farthest part of the galaxy is about 80,000 light-years away from us

    Has anyone been there to verify this? I know there are some forumlas for figuring this out, but it's all hogwash to me. What does the "edge of the galaxy" look like. Sounds more like the "edge of the world" a few centuries ago.

    --

    There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
    1. Re:Tangent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the galaxy != the universe

    2. Re:Tangent by dkf · · Score: 1
      Sounds more like the "edge of the world" a few centuries ago.
      Of course the world has an edge! You're standing on it. It's usually called "the crust".
      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  104. Eventually these probes came home by blueZ3 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We've seen this in STTM... V'ger came home and destroyed the sending race in a futile attempt to contact the "creator."

    Face it, we're not going to meet aliens, because they've already been destroyed by their own creations.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  105. Re:Eat at Earth - Wonderful solution. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    This would be great. Life would suddenly have a meaning. We would not die in vain, but actually keep a superior race well fed, and at the same time I assume this superior race would be bright enough to regulate the world population for optimal living quality. I just hope they like a their food steaked or cooked. I`m not very much into being eaten alive.

  106. think for once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Self replicating..in space? Where are the materials coming from? do these magic probes have wormholes built into them connected to a giant parts lab here on earth?

  107. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  108. Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by careysub · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The study in question does not even address the Fermi Paradox in any meaningful sense, much less "resolve" it. In fact, if this study is being offered as a resolution of the Fermi Paradox then it suggests the researcher does not understand why the Fermi Paradox is a paradox at all.

    The fundamental difficulty with any explanation offered for the complete absence (so far) of any sign of other intelligent life in the universe is that the proposed explanation has to be universally valid.

    The span of time for colonization, or dispersal of replicating probes, or of building vast telescopically detectable artifacts is so great that even one single exception from any proposed explanation would be capable of generating ubiquitous evidence in a tiny fraction of the life of the Universe.

    Simply describing some model for exploration, and then arguing that this model won't do the job says nothing about other models. This study apparently does not consider the geometric growth that occurs with any exploration program that uses some form of replication of explorers, for example. If replication is thought to be impossible then the study would have the high hurdle of convincingly demonstrating this. (The material evidence of life on Earth seems to argue persuasively against it though.)

    Arguments that "interstellar travel is impossible" would qualify for explaining why alien artifacts aren't being found locally (but do not address communication signals or telescopically detectable artifacts), but require convincing arguments that this is indeed true. On the contrary, physics does not seem to make this impossible at all, just very costly and slow. Too costly and slow for anyone to bother? Not even one single civilization?

    The Fermi Paradox seems to be telling something important about the Universe. If only we knew what it is...

    --
    Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    1. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by btempleton · · Score: 1

      Ok, this is odd. Your criticism is spot-on about Fermi, but also shows you didn't read the paper, where he does indeed address (badly) the concepts of self-replicating probes and the like. He just thinks they are a bad idea. Not infeasable, mind you, just a bad idea so nobody would build them. So yes, it's a very naive study, but you do have to do even such papers the credit of reading before saying they don't consider geometric growth.

      The reasoning above is why I believe the Prime-Directive/Zoo thesis is the most likely Fermi answer. That only requires that one intelligent race, the one that controls our neighbourhood, wishes to hide from us the evidence of ETs. The "we've in a virtual universe" answer also meets that requirement.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    2. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The fundamental difficulty with any explanation offered for the complete absence (so far) of any sign of other intelligent life in the universe is that the proposed explanation has to be universally valid.

      Er, why ? I mean, assuming the whole universe is 100% uniform in every way seems a bit, well, unrealistic (although I'm sure it makes the maths easier)...

      The Fermi Paradox seems to be telling something important about the Universe. If only we knew what it is...

      That no-one else out there[0] is _significantly_ more advanced than us ?

      That whole "principle of mediocrity" think works in both directionsm, you know...

      Maybe the Fermi Paradox is telling us something about itself ?

      [0] "There" in this case referring to the chunk of space we can actually see.

    3. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by resonte · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The Fermi Paradox seems to be telling something important about the Universe. If only we knew what it is...




      My hunch is that once a civilisation reaches a certain stage in their evolution when they can simulate reality completely, then they find very little need in continuing to exist in the present Universe, and migrate into this simulated reality.

      What's the point in travesing a Universe that will take billions of years to get basically nowhere, when you can create your own Universe, with it's own rules, having total control of it.

      --
      \(^o^)/
    4. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Fermi paradox is telling us that we're the only intelligent life forms in the Universe, and that everything in the Bible is literally true. ;-)

    5. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone is saying "It is too costly to do this....."

      In a communist regime everything is free!! Perhaps ET is a communistic friend of Marx and their space probes will cost them nothing?

    6. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      "The fundamental difficulty with any explanation offered for the complete absence (so far) of any sign of other intelligent life in the universe is that the proposed explanation has to be universally valid."

      No. We just have to be first.

      This study is nonsense; if you start sending out probes to nearby stars as soon as possible after arriving at the next destination, you can cover the entire galaxy in a million years or less. If intelligence with technology is uncommon, then the first to evolve is likely to take over the entire galaxy before a second appears.

    7. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by Woek · · Score: 1

      Very insightful! If you haven't yet, I suggest you read the "Manifold" series by Stephen Baxter (especially Manifold:space IIRC). It tries to deal with Fermi, each book in a different way, but with the same characters, leading to entirely different stories.

    8. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by careysub · · Score: 1

      Ok, this is odd. Your criticism is spot-on about Fermi, but also shows you didn't read the paper, where he does indeed address (badly) the concepts of self-replicating probes and the like. He just thinks they are a bad idea. Not infeasable, mind you, just a bad idea so nobody would build them. So yes, it's a very naive study, but you do have to do even such papers the credit of reading before saying they don't consider geometric growth.

      It's true I hadn't read it, I was having trouble downloading the PDF and went by the Guardian article and the Arxiv abstract. But after having read it, my point is the same - considering a special case (a small fixed number non-replicating of probes launched by just one civilization) fails to address the Fermi Paradox at all.

      His major finding is that with a fixed number of probes, n, the time to explore the galaxy is linear in the number of probes (not too surprising, that). So if n is sufficiently small then there won't have been enough time. He prefers a number of about 20 probes/subprobes, but was willing to consider as many as 1800 (which would actually cover the entire galaxy in about its actual age, according to his model). Why these small numbers? Well, you see, these probes are expensive so he assumes that not many would ever be launched. If he had instead assumed a low continuous launch rate of, say, one per thousand years then the entire galaxy would have been explored in 200 million years. So his claim to address the paradox fails even within the limitation of one civilization and non-replicating probes.

      He does mention replication but utterly fails to clear the high hurdle I described required to dismiss it. He simply argues it seems like it might be a bad idea to let self-replicating probes loose. Maybe. But then you just keep them at home, and sterilize them (so that they cannot replicate) before letting them go. Then you have a geometrically increasing launch rate of non-replicating probes that would explore the galaxy in about the time it takes to traverse it: one million years at the assumed 0.1 c.

      The reasoning above is why I believe the Prime-Directive/Zoo thesis is the most likely Fermi answer. That only requires that one intelligent race, the one that controls our neighbourhood, wishes to hide from us the evidence of ETs. The "we've in a virtual universe" answer also meets that requirement.

      This solution does actually address the problem, but it is analogous to the creationist Omphalos argument that God created the world (and universe) 10,000 years ago and fabricated all the evidence to give it an apparent age that was much older. Seems unsatisfying. (Especially since if you accept it then the moment of creation could have been 10 minutes or 10 seconds ago).

      Can anyone propose a test to prove that we aren't living in the Matrix?

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    9. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by glider0524 · · Score: 1
      Some reasons for species to explore:
      • Curiosity, loneliness. There's always the possibility of undiscovered physics, since it's unlikely that any species can ever be sure they've really discovered it all. No matter how advanced a species it, they might want to search for an even older, more experienced race to teach them. Maybe they hope to find a old race that has records of even older races. They might find us incidentally in the process.
      • Perverse pleasure in hunting and killing. Some members of mankind hunt other lesser species for pleasure, it's a throwback to our survival days. Any species that has survives to old age may through Darwinism have to be deeply xenophobically aggressive. Think Borg, a.k.a. the biggest kid on the block.
      • Self protection. If you assume that the physics of this universe has some practical limit in terms of technology (miniaturization, energy harnessing, quantum randomness, speed as a function of light, etc) then time to develop it would tend an equalizing factor among various civilizations. Given 1 million years to independently develop technology, I'll bet pretty much every species gets a hold of all the same basic stuff. Anything that is possible given the physics in this universe. Magnetic pulse laser cannons, .5c rail guns, electromagnetic force shields, light-bending camouflage exteriors, antimatter/fusion/ion drives, whatever. The possibility that anyone can eventually develop this stuff might be a troubling contingency for them.
      For example today: Right now the hostile Arab states aren't at all very much for the American military to worry about handling--at least in terms of them launching a traditional organized invasion on our soil. What if we sat and did nothing about them for 500 years? After that time, what would we have versus them? It might be time then to get worried, when THEY have AI self-guiding, stealthy, multi-mini-black-hole warhead-tipped ICBMs capable of being launched from offshore ultra-silent submarines? I doubt that defensive technologies can counter offensive technologies forever. We are very fragile beings, after all.

      Given the relatively short time span for advancements in technology (a mere thousands of years), it might be in the best survival interest of other species to keep tabs on the competition before they get too far out of control. It might also even be in their interest to 'run silent' while gathering this information. After all, what advantage is there in broadcasting one's existence? It would be like showing your poker hand to everyone at the table. The more prudent approach might be to let others broadcast themselves, whether advanced or not, and then decide if you want to reciprocate to just them selectively. Just like living in a really tough neighborhood. It's possible that all of the noisy, eager species have been eliminated so far due to this survival-rule reality. And it would explain the silence.
      --
      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is. -Berra
    10. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by btempleton · · Score: 1

      Actually, conversely there is a "proof" we are in a virtual universe. The proof first asks you to accept the assertion that virtual worlds are possible (seems credible) and that thus we will create many of them, including ones that reimplement the source universe and others. As such there will be an arbitrarily large number of virtual Earths.

      What are the odds that you're in the original? Vanishingly small.

      --
      Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    11. Re:Irrelevant to the Fermi Paradox by jlehtira · · Score: 1

      We cannot really telescopically see planets either. Possible lifeforms are probably not building planet-size artifacts that would be distinguishable from planets either (it would be hard to find enough materials, or a reason, to do so!). Telescopically detectable artifacts? Nah. The fact we don't see them doesn't mean anything. Come on, we can only slightly see the Mars rovers from Mars orbit.

      What about communication then? Our first radio broadcasts are already many lightyears away. Let's assume 100 ly, and let's assume for the sake of argument that the transmission power was 1 gigawatt (it CERTAINLY was much less). So 100 ly away, how much is left of that transmission power? Approximately 8.9e-29 (0.00000000000000000000000000089) watts per square meter. Now I'm not an expert on this, but I understand that's vastly below the chances of our own biggest radio telescopes.

      Earth receives quite a lot of energy from the sun too. The amount is in the vicinity of 1.8*10^17 watts or roughly 180000 terawatts. Because the Earth temperature is nearly constant, the Earth is radiating away a similar amount of energy. I fail to find a number for total human energy usage, but did find a report saying that it's "equivalent to 0.005% of the total energy incident upon the earth's surface". That said, if all the energy all of the humanity employs was used to send a signal, we'd get to around 50 millionths of the total power the Earth is radiating out anyway. Now one could imagine ingenious ways to separate this information from all possible natural wavelengths, but that won't solve all the problems with the scales of things involved.

      Self-replicating probes? Now, it might be feasible to enter a system, hunt down an asteroid (huge energies involved in orbital adjustments), take it apart, build another probe and go forth to another system. The problem is energy. Do the probes use solar sails? That's completely feasible but slow. Solar panels? Same thing. Chemical energy? Nope, not feasible for any reasonable speed, the amount of fuel needed would exceed 100% of the probe's mass many times. Nuclear fission? Many problems finding fuel and preparing it for actual usage. Fusion? Now we're speculating. I think there are enough problems that the first dozen probes of any civilization are doomed to fail before getting to replicate. And that somebody might not be so keen to send probes if he knew that the probe had no way whatsoever to communicate back it's findings (see above paragraphs).

      That said, I'm convinced that the human population is completely unable to spot another intelligent life of roughly the same level, even if it was at Alpha Centauri.

  109. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

    Every copy of something introduces error. The instant you introduce a physical replicating system in the real world you also introduce evolution. At which point it stops working for you and starts working for itself.

    Or, you could just program them to destroy themselves if the has of their program doesn't match. Evolution requires a LOT of diversity, not to mention competition for resources. The odds of getting even one mutant would be astronomically (heh) small with a simple hash.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  110. But... by rmunaval · · Score: 1

    I heard they found Osama before Bush could find him...

  111. I laugh at people who say things like that by Steeltoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's why I laugh when people spot human-sized UFO craft. If there are UFOs here, they're microscopic.

    Assumptions are just that, assumptions. You can laugh all you want, but to me, it just shows one more scientific dogma. The attitude of "knowing it all" is sadly very prevalent here on Slashdot, and probably why so many spend time writing here, instead of discovering new stuff.

    The problem is lack of creativity. In 0.5 seconds, I thought of nano-UFOs. Send one, or trillions of those, and let them dig into a moon or planet to rebuilt itself into a fully fledged macro-sized "UFO". Or, maybe if you want to "recreate yourself in your own image", why not send out organic "bombs"? Etc. etc. There are so many possibilities when you dont restrict your mind.

    Just because you cant think of it, doesnt mean it isnt possible or thinkable. Please free your mind! There is so much more to know than we already know! And instead of giving focus to more effective ways to kill people, why not science of life?

    1. Re:I laugh at people who say things like that by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 1

      That is why I'm an engineer and not a more abstract scientist or science fiction writers. I think in a way along of how youd practically do something. We need people like me, we need people not like me.

      I'd never much considered the nano-probe idea before simply because it didn't come to mind, but I think it's really interesting. That's why I'm here on slashdot, to discuss and learn things like this, not because I'm not doing anything better... well that and I have no class today. That's the beauty of society, academics, the internet, and all of this, that we can get together and consider ideas that we wouldn't think of individually, because we're all very different.

      That said I hope we look at the possibilities of this in the near future for actual use, and would be interested in working on it myself if I got the chance.

    2. Re:I laugh at people who say things like that by inviolet · · Score: 1
      The problem is lack of creativity. In 0.5 seconds, I thought of nano-UFOs. Send one, or trillions of those, and let them dig into a moon or planet to rebuilt itself into a fully fledged macro-sized "UFO". Or, maybe if you want to "recreate yourself in your own image", why not send out organic "bombs"?

      We already do.

      Whenever a big rock hits the Earth, billions of bacterial spores are blasted off into space, where they float away. Eventually they'll land somewhere, perhaps on a planet that can support organic chemistry. They'll reactivate and continue the CHON/GCAT cycle. Eventually they'll evolve an intelligence suitable for the terrain. At that time they'll be able to continue the noble and ancient job of killing each other over the matter of whose pretend god is less nonreal.

      A bacteria is the most sophisticated thing you can randomly fire (in spore form) onto a random planet in order to get life going without any help from the motherworld. Indeed, perhaps life on Earth began this way ("panspermia").

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
  112. Interstellar Travel is Easy(tm)... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you just throw yourself at everything close by (including your current position) and miss.

  113. SURVEY by russ1337 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I reckon theres a Slashdot survey on the best way to explore:

    How would you prefer to travel?

    a. A blue Police Box that can traverse space and time, with a hot British former 'teen star' that is obviously in love with your weirdness.
    b. A big ancient ring that can take you anywhere where there is a corresponding ancient ring, but you keep bumping into Egyption dog people who try to kill you.
    c. A large dinner shaped spaceship that does warp factors, but you get to shoot at klingons and make sexy time with green chicks (remember its all about the Journey!) Just dont get assimilated by Bjork!
    d. Travelling with the Robinson family and a stupid robot that shouts "Danger" long after it stopped being funny. Oh and a pedophile.
    e. In a ship that can make the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs - With a great big hairy Wooky and a gay robot.
    e. Spending time on the only ship to have survived an attack by robots with KITT in their face, where it is a daily battle to stay alive.
    f. On a moon that was flung out of orbit by a massive thermonuclear explosion initiated by the build up of magnetic radiation, which there is much debate as to it being caused by global warming.
    g. Traveling across universes with a guy that looks like Mike Moore, where each new universe you 'slide' into is exactly like being on LSD.
    h. On a ship with a dorky hologram an evolved cat, a computer with an IQ of 6000 and a very stupid robot, but every day is hilarious!
    I. The space shuttle. (yawn)

    1. Re:SURVEY by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      Oh, and for your information. I choose 'a' hands down.

    2. Re:SURVEY by s-gen · · Score: 1

      F*ck all ov thee above. I'll take the Lexx.

    3. Re:SURVEY by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      I don't recognize (f), sorry.

    4. Re:SURVEY by LotusMan · · Score: 1

      It's Space 1999

      --
      -- Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
    5. Re:SURVEY by ray-auch · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed out:

      On a ship shaped like a sleek running shoe, perfectly white and
      mindboggingly beautiful... (if you can stand the manic ship's computer and the terminally depressed robot).

    6. Re:SURVEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh... A. Yeah. Definately A.

    7. Re:SURVEY by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sorry, I didn't read past your first option. Where do I sign up?

      --
      Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
    8. Re:SURVEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Michael Moore? Wasn't it Pavarotti?

      interesting fact: the CATCHPA for this post is 'incest'

    9. Re:SURVEY by Goonie · · Score: 3, Informative

      you forgot (j): being piggybacked by CowboyNeal.

      --

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
      --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    10. Re:SURVEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Moore? Wasn't it Pavarotti?

      no it was gimli!

    11. Re:SURVEY by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      it's a toss-up for me between the gay robot and the pedophile. if i wanted to feel like i was on acid i'd just take some acid...

    12. Re:SURVEY by wbdace · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I'm amazed at the number of Slashdoters that think that parsecs are a measure of time rather than distance - like light-years. I would expect this of ordinary mortals.

    13. Re:SURVEY by CptPicard · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're missing a really important option... the ship with the psychotic computer that tries to kill you by locking you out so that you won't interfere with the success of the mission..

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    14. Re:SURVEY by Ihlosi · · Score: 1

      The Death Star for me, please. And weld some sort of grate over that exhaust port.

    15. Re:SURVEY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm amazed that someone on Slashdot would not get a Star Wars reference when he saw one. However I'm not surprised that someone on Slashdot would act like a pompous buffoon.

    16. Re:SURVEY by russ1337 · · Score: 1

      We know a parsec is a mesure of distance, It was Han Solo that mouthed off about his ship doing the 'kessel run in less than 12 parsecs'- that is what he said. Don't you know your Star Wars?

    17. Re:SURVEY by Geak · · Score: 0

      And the reason he said it is because the kessel run is extremely difficult/dangerous to navigate. He went through it in the shortest distance. It really had nothing to do with speed.

  114. So Many Assumptions by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think most people would agree that papers like this are based upon so many assumptions that they are pretty much worthless, regardless of which cosmology you believe in. It's just a product of our affinity for math and our desire to feel like we have more confidence in some sciences than we can actually achieve in the absence of input-output experiments (ie, to varying degrees, astronomy, geology and archaeology).

    But it's interesting to note that the biggest single assumption in this type of logic is that the universe is not infinite in time and space. In a static electric universe, without a beginning to base your calculations upon, chances are high that neither stars nor galaxies have determinable ages. The entire system is essentially "transient" and papers like this are completely meaningless. As painful as it is to imagine it, aliens could have started seeding the universe an infinite amount of time ago. It's possible that not even they could tell you when they started. This is of course no more painful though than imagining what happened before the Big Bang.

    I've also seen it mentioned amongst people who are aware of Electric Universe Theory that the more you understand plasma, the more the plasma of the universe appears to constitute a living organism. The fact that plasma can form double-layers to "protect" its charge suggests parts of a living entity. And if Chip Arp is correct, the notion that spiral galaxies can "spit" out quasars might be the process by which the organism spreads out of its original domain. The stars are the organism's cells and mobile charged particles act as the nutrients for the plasma, which would ironically be like the organism's blood. Within this context, the rocky planets are a rare, harmless non-plasma pocket where we humans, like tiny viruses, can multiply and possibly expand.

    Taking the idea one step further, another strange curiosity of EU Theory is that all of the plasma phenomenon within the universe we've observed thus far are actually electrical loads and transmission lines. Once you've become acquainted with the theory, you begin to wonder what is in fact the *source* of the power. You'd have to conclude that we're likely not in range to view the source, but this is a very interesting question. It's the EU Theory version of asking how old the Big Bang Universe is.

    Weird shit. Once the public starts to learn more about plasma, I think it's inevitable that it will become a popular topic for strange ideas like this.

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    1. Re:So Many Assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've also seen it mentioned amongst people who are aware of Electric Universe Theory that the more you understand plasma, the more the plasma of the universe appears to constitute a living organism
      This kind of "epiphany" is why some astronomers become devout Christians, and why some evolutionary biologists embrace the Gaea Theory.

      Once you've become acquainted with the theory, you begin to wonder what is in fact the *source* of the power
      That is a very good question. Why don't you ask them?

      Let us know if they mention God or have a good explanation of why there is much less gamma radiation visible than would be expected from Plasma Universe nonmetal nucleosynthesis.

      Alfven prepared his two main cosmologies firstly in reaction to what he saw as a theistic, creationist trend in Big Bang cosmology and then secondly in reaction to a creeping creationism in Plasma universe proponents' work on solving initial starting conditions that could lead to the present distribution of matter vs antimatter, the isotropy (the dipole anisotropy was not as well known at the time) the horizon, and the redshift.

      Unfortunately, and coincidentally, a popular religious historian and catastrophist mangled some ideas from Alfven's and Klein's work in astronomy for his own purposes, so Alfven's concerns about creeping creationism were well-founded.

      Alfven set off in the direction of a large steady state universe in which the observable universe is a small embedded fragment that just happens to have once been double layered plasmas of matter and antimatter, with the proton and electron sheets locally having many more particles than the antiproton and positron counterparts.

      Unfortunately this mispredicts a number of aspects of the Hubble flow and it particularly rejects a CMB with a blackbody spectrum. It also has no answer to the deficit of X and gamma rays, other than to fall back to Alfven's original objection ("it was that way ab initio") to his own earlier work.

      Oskar Klein, on the other hand (the Klein in Alfven-Klein Cosmology) became the Klein in Kauza-Klein theory, and is generally credited with originating the idea that extra dimensions may be physically real but microscopically shallow, an curled up (more precisely he sought a Euclidean space curled into a spheroid of roughly Planck length diameter). That is, Alfven's partner in developing his second Plasma cosmology -- from which the Electric Universe Theory evolved -- is the person who proposed the form of the extra spatial dimensions in brane theory (string theory / M-theory). He did this some forty years before he picked up Alfven's work, developing two Alfven-Klein plasma cosmologies. Prior to his death, he abandoned this line of research in favour of investigating the strong nuclear force with QCD and along the same lines as Nambu. (Klein's late non-philosophical works are an extension of his original efforts to describe the atomicity of electricity as a quantum law, and he was particularly taken with the idea of opposing General Relativity from a new angle -- bosonic string theory (with its quantization of gravity, and also with its twenty-two extra spatial dimensions, and superluminal/time-travelling particles that Alfven had problems with and took pains to reject in his work on Plasma cosmology in the last few years of his life)).

      Unfortunately Klein died six or seven years before work on superstrings started being widely accepted as feasible and worthwhile.
  115. self-replicating automata by peter303 · · Score: 1

    People have proposed send out rocket-robot-factories which would make more copies of themselves after arrival and so on. These would result in huge numbers of probes after sufficient number of generations, even if a generation took 100,000 years. Maybe they'd be in the sahpe of large balck rectangles. Or maybe they'd call themselves Omibus.

  116. Not very scientific study. by hackus · · Score: 1

    Can I appeal to everyones common sense for a moment?

    Your a civilization, a sentient race.

    You have mastered and solved the distance problem between Stars and have decided to explore space.
    (i.e. I am assuming that they would be like us, since we haven't solved the distance problem, we know it is impractical to do so, due to the time constraints of waiting for all the probes to return/radio signals etc. Using this train of thought, they wouldn't even try until they solved the distance problem, just like us.)

    What would be your first mission?

    I will assume like us, they are interested in other forms of sentient life.

    Like us, I assume they will have technology to seek out star systems using automated telescopes for worlds that have chemical signatures that make it very probable higher forms of life exist there.

    I am assuming they wouldn't systematically look at EVERY planet using a brute search such as what the professor is proposing.

    Even WE can get spectrographic information about worlds now outside our solar system, I assume this for them would be a trivial problem to automate a search.

    Given this information, I think the professor needs to go back to the drawing board, as even WE wouldn't look for sentient life at the center of the milky way, for example, as we know active star regions are too violent to allow life to follow a undisturbed evolutionary/creationary cycle for sentient life.
    (My Apologies to those who worship the dogma of science or those who worship the dogma of religion. For those of you in between and do both, congratulations your a sane human being.)

    Again, if the scientific model of discovering information is truly the same no matter where you are in the Universe, I assume these assumptions hold true for any life, and that we are not special.

    A intelligent search could be completed far faster than the quoted "billions of years".

    I assume these Aliens have common sense enough not to use a intelligent sorting/search algorithm, unlike what the professor suggests. (i.e. What worlds have intelligent life? Mmmm..I know! Lets Bubble sort them into life vs. probably no life.)

    I wish I could comment on our own search attempts. Ok I will. :-)

    SETI=Looking for Radio Signals=Wate of cash to the tune of over a billion and counting.

    If the whole idea of looking for an advanced civilization using radio search methods hasn't dawned on anyone here as stupid, let me enlighten you with a few facts SETI doesn't want you to know about:

    1) Radio waves are absorbed by just about any sort of gas or dust material. Don't believe me? Ever use your cell phone lately? Think its crappy listening to someone a few miles away? Try it a billion miles away.

    The likely hood SETI is going to pick up a signal is so small, I wager 100 Trillion dollars later, they still won't have a signal.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Not very scientific study. by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      You have mastered and solved the distance problem between Stars and have decided to explore space.

      What would be your first mission?

      Build a fiber-optic intersteller communication network, so that I can Get Things Done without aliens passively detecting me. Then when I send probes, invade, etc, I'll catch 'em with their pants down.

      No wonder it's hard; you have to figure out how to make the probes carry enough fiber to unreel behind them all the way to other solar systems, and keep your planet's rotation and orbit from tangling up all your probes' fibers.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  117. major flaw in his calculations by 3seas · · Score: 1

    we don't yet know enough about gravity to know how fast such a thing really could happen.
    And then there is the purpose of doing so. In other word: why?

  118. Extraterrestrials have been here lately... by walter_f · · Score: 1

    ... and after having looked around in a representative sample of continents (about five) and having seen how most humans are being treated by just small groups in power, they decided not to contact the President of the U.S., the Secretary General of United Nations or whoever the proper person for representing mankind might have been in their view. Instead, they preferred to leave silently and to go elsewhere. As of this writing, they are said to be already some hundred light years away, lightheartedly heading for the sagittarius region. ;-)

  119. missing option by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    A living ship full of muppets and alien cuties.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  120. You don't understand. by raehl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He doesn't even consider non-material, photon-based probing methods, which would increase the rate of exploration by a factor of 10.

    Doesn't matter. Light only travels so fast, and we've only been here, what, 10,000 years? Nobody further than 10,000 light years away could have possibly found us yet. And a 10,000 light year sphere is well less than 4% of the galaxy.

    This whole study is kind of dumb, because it doesn't matter that you can explore 4% of the galaxy in 4 billion years when we've only been here for 10,000 years. Even if they did come to earth, it's almost certain that when they were here, they found either nothing or some bacteria and kept going.

    1. Re:You don't understand. by Krupuk · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter. Light only travels so fast, and we've only been here, what, 10,000 years? Nobody further than 10,000 light years away could have possibly found us yet. And a 10,000 light year sphere is well less than 4% of the galaxy.

      Our galaxy has a diameter of about 100,000 light years and a thickness of 1,000 light years. A 10,000 light years sphere would be about 10% of the galaxy, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

    2. Re:You don't understand. by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      Our galaxy has a diameter of about 100,000 light years and a thickness of 1,000 light years. A 10,000 light years sphere would be about 10% of the galaxy, wouldn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong. Let's assume for simplicity that the galaxy is two-dimensional. In that case, a circle with 100,000 ly would have 100x the area of one with 10,000 ly.

      And we've only been transmitting radio signals for what ... 150 years maybe ? Before that, anything other than a close-up examination of Earth would have yielded "small rocky planet with significant amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere and possibly liquid water. Biological processes are very likely". Since we cannot detect this type of planet yet, we don't know how numerous they are ... if there's one like that every 1000 star systems, the aliens might have looked at others first.

  121. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our new extraterestrial overlords. Oh, wait, it will take some time for them to arrive...

  122. *Sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one miss our new extraterrestial overloards.

  123. Better for AI to colonize by btempleton · · Score: 1

    An AI (being made of software) is a much better colonizer because it can travel as a signal at the speed of light. It just needs something to receive it, implement the virtual machine on which it runs, and then get it enough CPU power to run.

    Once you tech civilization even below our level, you will get something to receive it and presuming you design well, the virtual machine implementation should not be hard.

    The best way to get enough CPU to run on a backwards planet would be to get a large network of slower primitive computers to run your code. To do that, you would want to come up with a problem they would like to solve using massively parallel computing, and then introduce a program such as a networked screen saver. You would tell the people that by running the program, their CPU would be dedicated to finding traces of alien intelligence in radio signals. Many of them would then run your program when their computers were idle, and you could build up a vast enough network to finally start thinking at a decent speed, rather than the terribly sluggish thinking you have to do before the network is up. You would not even be lying to those who think they are running a search for extraterrestrial intelligence @ home, for they would indeed be assisting in the search for one.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
  124. Subspace transmitter misuse, keep fingers crossed by cafeteria · · Score: 1

    I someone already accidentally flicked on the subspace transmitter directing the Delta-quadrant, then we are in big BIG trouble...

  125. If poster was referring to Space 1999... by s-gen · · Score: 1

    ...then its a bit inaccurate. Teh moon was flung out of orbit cuz we were dumping nuclear waste on it and it all got a bit too close together and went bang. Kirk: "To boldly go..." Koenig: "I used to run a garbage dump. But I f*cked it up."

  126. They assume too much by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    They haven't taken into account that other worlds may be far advanced than Earth. They assume that earth is older than any other planetary system. They haven't taken into account of the many UFO sightings. Plus the many UFO's on record as being reported as no explanation other than a UFO. Their report is just biased too me.

    Do not meddle with UFO's. For you are crunchy, and good with ketchup.

  127. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    Or, you could just program them to destroy themselves if the has of their program doesn't match. That would only work until that particular part of the system was corrupted during replication process. Evolution is inevitable as soon as you have analogue copying. It might take a million replications for that particular error to hit, but it'd happen eventually.

    --
    Deleted
  128. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

    It just takes one with a broken self-destruct. Then natural selection will take over.

    --
    Man, you really need that seminar!
  129. depends on what you look for by gr8dude · · Score: 1

    Hmm, but the thing is that it's not a fact that they are looking for life forms. The primary objective could be different - ex. resources, or a planet they could inhabit.

    Taking into account the fact that our society is pretty materialistic, I doubt that our probes will be looking for life. Most certainly, they'll be looking for useful raw material (and perhaps for life, among other things.. but definitely not the primary target).

  130. Maybe they did find us already ... by highlander76 · · Score: 1

    and just didn't find us interesting enough to stop. Or were a little shy and couldn't think of anything witty to break the ice.

  131. Such a limited view by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Using *our* current knowledge of physics etc to make predictions as to the performance of *other* beings technology is both arrogant and small minded.

    Let us roll back the clock, say, 200 years: A person up to date with the technology of the time would have no knowledge of airplanes, cars etc would make the some silly statement that it would be impossible for a person to ever cross USA in one day. They'd also say that it is very unlikely to find a particular quote in some random book within three months of searching, Google etc changes that. Change the technology and understanding of physics and we'd laugh at anyone saying something as stupid as that now.

    But won't people 200 years from know laugh at our pathetic understanding of technology and physics? If there is intelligent life (I don't think so personally), it might just be a couple hundred or thousand or whatever years ahead of us and would thus not be bound by the limiting assumptions we make today.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Such a limited view by owlstead · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As science advances, we learn more and more about the forces that drive nature, and the laws they abide by. Those examples you gave us don't violate any of the known physical lays. I find it a bit disturbing that the advancement of science is taken to mean that everything will become possible. Instead, we better know the posibilities and certainly the impossibilities. Maybe we will find a way around these laws, but I highly doubt it.

      I for one would really like to explore the universe and make contact with alien species. Unfortunately, my just wishing this is the case doesn't make it so.

  132. I agree with conclusion, but not his assuptions. by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1
    I agree with the author. The reason we have not found another civilization is that we have not looked long enough and they have not looked long enough. The real problem is that us humans have not been here for very long. We just learned to build cities 5,000 years ago and learned that the Sun is a star a couple hundred years ago. We are to new and young to have been found yet.

    But I disagree with his numbers. Searching all of the galaxy would be MUCH quicker. His assumption of sending out a fixed number of probes is wrong. In fact his assumed plan is so bad no one would ever do it that way. The way to do it, in fact the only way that could ever work is to build a probe that can build probes. You build 100 of these and each of these builds 100 and after 10 generations you have a galaxy filled up with probes. If there is anything to be found you WILL find it that way. So, I'd not be surprised at all to find four probes in our Solar system noe as we speak, all of which have found us and all having sent a message back to their builders. The message will take thousands of years to get there and maybe the builders are long dead or lost interest in listening or forgot how to listen or forgotten that these probes were ever sent.

    The best plan would NOT be to even bother to send a message back home. The probes would be one-way comunication. The probes would simply say "Someone built by great, great, grandparent and they used to live over there. Would you guys please send a message back? I can't yell that loud."

    Sending out eight probes with eight sub-probes each is a stupid plan. It would take "forever" for only 64 probes to search the galaxy and worse then that, each probe would have to continue to function for an unreasonable length of time. I doubt humans will ever know how to build a machine that can last a billion years but if they build a machine that can build a machine they will not have to.

  133. Complete nonsense by Tango42 · · Score: 1

    He's assuming you need to actually visit a star to see if there is life orbiting it. It's far easier to look through a telescope, and then perhaps send out probes to a few specific stars that look hopeful. We could easily have a comprehensive list of potential habitable planets in 50 years time (at least within a few hundred light years, quite probably more). Sending a probe to each, travelling at 0.1c would have all the nearby potential planets checked out within 10,000 years, maybe. I haven't worked out how far away from Earth you need to go to cover 4% of the Milky Way, but I doubt it would take more than a million years to do such an exploration.

    Of course, if SETI is right, we can find life without ever having to visit it, just by listening for it. In which case, the entire galaxy can be "explored" in 100,000 years (the galaxy is 100,000ly in diameter, so it would take that long for radio singles from the furthest stars to reach us), our neighbourhood can be "explored" in a few thousand years. It's important to note that almost all those years pass before you actually start looking, but if we're talking about why aliens haven't reached us, those are the numbers we're interested it.

  134. The Progenitors already mapped this universe by rentmej · · Score: 1

    The reason no alien race has found us is simply because they aren't looking.

    Billions of years ago, the Progenitors figured out space travel and mapped the universe.

    They uplifted (genetically modified) other species until they were smart enough to fly space ships, created galactic civilization, made the rules, then left.

    Every couple hundred-thousand years someone comes by to update the map and to do a survey.

    Besides, our soloar system was left fallow after a war destroyed the life on Mars and Venus 80 million years ago.

    --
    0100001001100101011010010110111001100111 0100100001110101011011010110000101101110
  135. That is the Paradox by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1
    The main disc of the galaxy is about 100,000 light years across. Assume 10% light speed for probe travel time, light speed for information return and 50 years for each new colony to build infrastructure to a point where they can launch probes. You'd have 90% of the galaxy explored in three or four million years -- almost 4 orders of magnitude less than this fellow's estimate.

    This is EXACTLY Fermi's Paradox. He said if there was even one advanced civilization, they would have done exactly the above and they would be here. But they are not here. So we must assume we are the first.

    it could be the case that civilazations are so un-common that only one or two exist in a billion years span. We have no way to know.

    1. Re:That is the Paradox by Spazmania · · Score: 1

      So we must assume we are the first.

      That doesn't follow. There's no reason to think that they would colonize every system they explore. Barring FTL it would be too expensive to colonize systems that weren't close to their ideal.

      Nor is it a valid supposition that we'd detect them in nearby systems if they were there. 1960's radio signals may have gone a long distance but today's cell phone signals would be hard to detect from as close as mars. As technology improves we emit progressively less waste energy and there's no reason to suppose that an alien culture wouldn't do the same. By the time they're advanced enough to make a colonization push, its reasonable to assume their waste energy would be effectively undetectable by our equipment. Barring incredible luck or a deliberate attempt to talk to us, there is no reason to suppose we'd find them.

      Which leads to a better question than Fermi's paradox: If they're out there, why haven't they tried to make contact with us yet?

      --
      Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
    2. Re:That is the Paradox by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1
      Which leads to a better question than Fermi's paradox: If they're out there, why haven't they tried to make contact with us yet?

      Lot's of reasons not to contact us but I think they might all be equivalent to "Because they have nothing to gain by contacting us."

      They might have ethical rules that say we have to find them first or scientific protocol that does not allow the observer to mess with what he is observing. We would be a rare find and they'd hate to miss the chance to watch us. Either way you have to wonder if they have anything to gain by contacting us, I'd think not.

      Still, Fermi's obsevation that they are NOT here and detectable tell you a lot. So far the simple fact that they are not here is the only firm observation we have. and this one observation puts some contraints on any theory

  136. Laugh Out Loud Funny. by M0b1u5 · · Score: 1

    This guy's hysterical! He gave me a real giggle. An honest to god, little-girl giggle. I just can't believe how stupid this man can be - or why he wasted his time (and my 120 seconds - which I want back BTW!) doing this stuff.

    Let's see why...

    In 1422, I'm sure the best mathematicians of the day would be able to confidently predict that Intercontinental trade is "Next to Impossible" or "Only in non-perishable goods, due to the extreme delays in delivery". And that "Exploring the remainder of the Earth's surface will take a thousand years" based on similar knowledge of the day.

    So, what this guy is trying to say, is that in 10 billion years, humanity (or any other technology based culture for that matter) can not invent something to get probes to relativistic velocities, or simply bypass "C" entirely, by folding space-time by using the entire output of a red-gaint star as a power source.

    Hell, he doesn't even mention von Neumann machines (Which I believe will be one of the very few "DO NOTS" in a Galactic Culture) which could explore the entire galaxy remarkably quickly.

    No, this article isn't worth the electrons used to push it: it assumes absolutely no movement of technology OVER A 10 BILLION YEAR TIME SCALE.

    Holy Moly - he's wrong by a factor of a BILLION. Because in 10 years time we *could* well have already developed FTL, Fusion Power and Force Fields.

    Thanks for the laugh, Rasmus Bjork, you truly are a useless Djork.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  137. What context?! by illeism · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Aliens have not visited earth or manipulated genes in some way.
    Average weight of humans up... sounds like and interstellar Hansel and Gretal
    --
    Help test the /. effect at my min
  138. Nothing to do with the Fermi paradox. by argent · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Let's assume you have a civilization capable of building, fuelling, and launching an autonomous probe like the one described. What is this civilization going to look like?

    1. It's incredibly stable. It's launching an exploration program using probes that are going to take billions of years to get a result back to the original civilization. It expects to be around to pick them up.

    By the same logic:

    2. Individual members are incredibly long-lived, or the society is static and conservative enough that individual goals are submerged. They expect that the people around in a few billion years still care about the stuff they're doing, AND they care about the people who'll be around then.

    The technology he's postulating is also very advanced.

    3. Large scale space-based industry is routine enough for them to build probes capable of refuelling themselves using the raw materials in an as-yet-unexplored solar system, with surplus fuel to launch and recover the sub-probes. If they can do that, they can do the same thing in their own solar system.

    If the probes are cheap by their standards, there's no reason not to keep building them indefinitely. So let's say they're expensive. Let's say it takes this civilization a hundred years to build a probe. Why do they stop after 800 years? They're long-lived, stable, conservative, so assuming they have the will to do it in the first place why would they stop building probes? As the author notes, probes break down.

    So what happens when you add another probe into the search every century, indefinitely? Well, after a million years you've got 10,000 probes out there. Now you're looking at a search time measured in millions rather than billions of years, and it only takes millions of years to do it.

    But why are they doing this? Looking for planets to colonize, perhaps? If they're just looking for civilizations they'd do much better depending on "signal intelligence".

    But if they've got the ability to send out colonies, even the most conservative long-lived space-based civilization is going to figure out eventually that they don't actually need habitable planets to support a permanent colony. It's riskier without habitable planets, but even if the planetless colony is 10 times less stable than the home system you're still better off with your civilization in two baskets. And before long (in the terms of this civilization) you've got a roughly spherical shell of colonized star systems, expanding as fast as they can reach new systems. At 0.1C colonizing (not just exploring) the galaxy is going to take mere millions of years.

    However, one should note that there could be complications with using self-replicating probes. Tipler (1980) himself points out that the program controlling the selfreplicating probes would have to have so high an intelligence that it might "go into business for itself" and become out of control of the humans who designed it, resulting in unforeseeable consequences.


    On the other hand, what if the self-replicating probes are members of the designing species themselves?

    So either this level of technology is impossible to achieve, or we're back to the question of why no species has done it yet. There's lots of plausible answers, of course, but this paper sheds no light on them.
    1. Re:Nothing to do with the Fermi paradox. by gfreeman · · Score: 1

      What is this civilization going to look like?

      And does it have a hot sister?

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    2. Re:Nothing to do with the Fermi paradox. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's incredibly stable. It's launching an exploration program using probes that are going to take billions of years to get a result back to the original civilization. It expects to be around to pick them up.

      Does not follow. They could just be incredibly arrogant and/or optimistic, just like us, we're constantly building and planning things that take long long long time to pay off, even though we KNOW the civilizations on this planet are hardly the epitome of stability.

      2. Individual members are incredibly long-lived, or the society is static and conservative enough that individual goals are submerged. They expect that the people around in a few billion years still care about the stuff they're doing, AND they care about the people who'll be around then.

      See above.

      Why do they stop after 800 years? They're long-lived, stable, conservative, so assuming they have the will to do it in the first place why would they stop building probes? As the author notes, probes break down.

      Oops, looks like they weren't as stable as they thought, and are suddenly too busy beating each other with a stick, their currently highest technological achievement.

    3. Re:Nothing to do with the Fermi paradox. by argent · · Score: 1

      Your comment is already addressed by my last paragraph: So either this level of technology is impossible to achieve, or we're back to the question of why no species has done it yet. There's lots of plausible answers, of course, but this paper sheds no light on them.

      The Fermi Paradox isn't "why hasn't this approach to exploring the galaxy succeeded", but "why, if life is as common as it seems it should be, hasn't any approach succeeded."

  139. Incorrect by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    The real reason they haven't found us yet is there aren't enough aliens contributing spare computer cycles to the STI@Home project (Search for Terrestrial Intelligence). Come on, folks; if you're an alien and you have a computer connected to the internet, why let your home computer waste millions of CPU cycles running a screen saver when it could be analyzing STI data?

    1. Re:Incorrect by dazlari · · Score: 1

      It might be that their software is better than ours we're just not that intelligent after all.

  140. Space... by jcr · · Score: 1

    ... is big. Really, really big. I mean, you may think it's a long way down to the chemists, but that's just peanuts to space.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  141. "They're made out of meat." by EonBlueApocalypse · · Score: 1
    THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT

    by Terry Bisson

    http://www.terrybisson.com/meat.html

  142. How many aliens by HaMMeReD3 · · Score: 1

    That's assuming there isn't many alien species out there, if there are billions of species of aliens, the odds seem a bit different then.

  143. Just Remember... by His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 1

    Just remember that you're standing on a planet that evolving,
    Revolving at 900 miles an hour.
    It's orbiting at 19 miles a second,
    So it's reckoned,
    A sun that is the source of all our power.

    The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see,
    Are moving at a million miles a day,
    In an outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
    Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

    Our galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars,
    It's 100,000 light years side to side,
    It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light years thick,
    But out by us it's just 3,000 light years wide.

    We're 30,000 light years from galactic central point,
    We go around every 200 million years,
    And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions,
    In this amazing and expanding universe...

    --
    "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
  144. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will welcome our obscenely slow overlords 10 billion years from now.

  145. Well... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our 250 billion year old space exploring overlords.

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
  146. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Lerc · · Score: 1

    It might take a million replications for that particular error to hit, but it'd happen eventually.

    And that, in a nutshell, is why creationism can be believed by otherwise intelligent people.

    Of course it wont take a million replications. You probably know that. Maybe a trillion would be closer to the mark. Evolution is slow, so slow that we can't really conceive of how slow that is. Any attempt at imagining it usually winds up thinking about much much shorter time-frames, and in those time-frames things simply wouldn't happen like that unless they had a helping hand.

    As to those probes. How does it take for a million self-replicating probes to become a trillion. People tend to get that one wrong too. Got a chessboard and some rice?

    --
    -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
  147. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    And that, in a nutshell, is why creationism can be believed by otherwise intelligent people. It is? Evolution is a numbers game.

    Evolution is slow, so slow that we can't really conceive of how slow that is. Slow? Is it now?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evoluti on
    http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/evol/lizard.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/07/science/07evolve .html?ex=1299387600&en=03aecd6036986b0e&ei=5088&pa rtner=rssnyt&emc=rss

    Evolution proceeds at different rates depending on the environment. If a population of long, medium and short tailed monkeys has all of the long tailed ones killed in a generation, then the species has evolved in that one generation... 5 years? The genes for long tails have gone.

    Random mutations now... Well that depends on just how good the copying process is, but no matter how good it is, it isn't perfect. There's no such thing as perfection in the real world so errors are going to appear and accumulate in offspring.

    As to those probes. How does it take for a million self-replicating probes to become a trillion. Depends how many offspring each generation have on average, the time between generations and available resources.... And if mutated machines predate on one another... No reason to believe they wouldn't.
    --
    Deleted
  148. Mind the Ancient Ones, Fool by livingdeadline · · Score: 1

    This Danish dude is going to like totally piss off the Elder Gods if he doesn't shut up

  149. Been there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We've done that already. After spending some time there and having
    everything be perfect, we realized we'd created a type of Hell. In order to
    escape from this we decided that we would download
    back into corporeal form. Now, after each iteration of this, we dump
    most of the newly acquired data and then re-download (sometimes referred to
    as reincarnation).

  150. The article's Concept is patently wrong! by coopsdog · · Score: 1

    Other civilizations will explore the universe for live at the speed of light (as we do). Any civilization within 3.8 billion light years with a large enough telescope knows of life here! Some might say the telescope would have to be size of their host planet, EXACTLY! Look up interferometry. Spectroscopy is what we use to determine (quite easily) the compounds in the atmospheres of extraterrestrial bodies: the 7 other planets, the sun, and by 2020 large extra-solar planets 3-4 times the size of Jupiter that are close to us. For about the last 3.8 billion years give or take .2 billion years, bacteria and other primitive organisms have been creating oxygen. Light from the sun is reflected through our atmosphere, obscuring certain wavelengths of light. The light reflected from the earth with the first traces of elevated oxygen is now 3.8 billion light years from earth. Commonly accepted estimates for the size of the universe are about 11 billion light years. So almost half of universe has the ability to know of our existence! A sphere with a radius of 3.8 billion light years is enormous! An extremely low estimate of the abundance of life in the universe (one civilization per galaxy) would equate to about 30-50 billion civilizations that fall within the spherical detection zone with a radius of 3.8 BLY. Civilizations within 100 light years can tell we have gone through an industrial revolution by light wavelengths obscured by CO2. Physical probes??!! Pfffffft.

  151. Maybe we should be asking ourselves why? by nixkuroi · · Score: 1

    What if they're so alien or advanced to us that we don't qualify as intelligent life forms? Even if they found us, would they recognize out planet as habitable enough to support their version of life? :)

  152. What about Europa? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Until we find what waits on Europa, how can we know?

    I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/cantdo.wav

  153. Buddhism... aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Buddhist descriptions of the world we live in, Jambudvipa, we live in one quadrant of the galaxy and other beings live in the others. Interestingly, the thing we have going for us, if you can say that at all, is that we alone act "under control" of our emotions.

  154. WRONG OR PLAGIARISM? by usmc1944 · · Score: 1

    Mr. Rasmus Bjoerk either tried to reinvent the wheel or stole the idea from Stephen Baxter's Manifold trilogy. Baxter's gave one of the best plausible colonization scenerios in his books, I recommend them to any avid Sci-Fi reader who doesn't know Baxter yet (he's a physicist and an engineer and he surely knows his stuff). Whatever Bjoerk said, it's already been said, and in better words, by Baxter.

  155. Assumptions Assumptions... by usmc1944 · · Score: 1

    Since the guy assumes so much about colonization being so similar to human needs/wants I'd have a question for him. If his theory is right, why we as humans haven't sent probes yet to our closest stars? (Voyager I and II don't really count because they were sent just "out there" with no actual destination). How about sending probes to the Barnard star system or Proxima/Alpha Centauri, Vega, etc.? Maybe another civilization doesn't care just as much.

  156. Faith by RonMcMahon · · Score: 1

    I've never understood how some can dismiss faith in God as foolish while holding on steadfastly to a belief in 'little green men'. At least what I hold faith in (God) has taken the effort to get in touch with us here on Earth.

  157. Bad assumptions. by jswalter9 · · Score: 1

    Look, just because WE haven't figured out how to travel faster than light doesn't mean it's impossible, or that we never will. FTL travel would greatly reduce the time required to explore over vast distances. I think it's fair to say, though, that if we ARE being visited, the extraterrestrials would almost have to have discovered a way to beat "the speed limit."

    --
    Retired from software... maybe. Sort of.
  158. Just plain dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No matter what means of travel, no matter how the probes operate, this plan uses them in a manner that is just plain dumb...a brute force hack of the universe...haha

    don't send probes in random directions or every direction...send to areas suspected to harbor life.

  159. Smart search in a tiny fraction of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One should consider the feasibility of constructing gargantuan space telescopes to directly image (and map) exo-planets and determine conditions thereupon by spectral analysis. How about apertures of 1 km, or 10000km or
    greater, operating with visible wavelengths of light and capable of resolving details on those planets? How precisely can a distributed array of small telescopes in solar orbit be tracked so that their light be combined in a synthetic aperture? What are the levels of "seeing" due to typical fluctuations in the density of the solar wind and interstellar medium? Which of these limits would future (or ET) astronomers run into first?

        If it is possible to colonize most or all Earth-like planets in the galaxy in much less time than a billion years or so, and assuming sufficiently large number of said planets, then it is likely that Earth has been discovered long ago by aliens. The galaxy is believed to be almost 3 times as old as the solar system. Although "metallicity", the fraction of matter in the form of elements heavier than Helium, started off very low in the earliest stars, is there any reason to exclude the possibility that some early supernova remnants may have resulted in some second generation stellar systems with anomalously high metallicities for their time? Might a few of these stars, at least twice as old as the Sun, harbour rocky planets and twice as much time available to evolve sentient life?

  160. Panspermia by Randym · · Score: 1
    We won't merely be discovered if aliens exist - we'll be colonized.

    If it weren't for the DNA raining down on us, we'd still be a "dead" planet. We have already been 'colonized'. See the wikpd entry for Panspermia.

    The existence of amino acids in interstellar space has already been established. See the article.

    "Indeed," noted Dr. Scott Sandford of Ames, "these findings are particularly intriguing because the amino acids found in meteorites do show some signatures that suggest an interstellar connection. This connection, combined with our finding that amino acids can be made in interstellar clouds suggests that the Earth may have been seeded with amino acids from space in its earliest days."

    "The infall of these materials on the early Earth may have facilitated the origin of life on our planet," said Dr. Jason Dworkin of the SETI Institute and Ames. "Furthermore, since new stars and planets are formed within the same clouds in which new amino acids are being created, this probably increases the odds that life has evolved elsewhere."

    Also note Terence McKenna's theory of the "magic mushrooms from outer space" that colonized Earth. See this article. The relevant quote:

    HT: From your writings I have gleaned that you subscribe to the notion that psilocybin mushrooms are a species of high intelligence -- that they arrived on this planet as spores that migrated through outer space, and are attempting to establish a symbiotic relationship with human beings. In a more holistic perspective, how do you see this notion fitting into the context of Francis Crick's theory of directed panspermia, the hypothesis that all life on this planet and its directed evolution has been seeded, or perhaps fertilized, by spores designed by a higher intelligence?

    TM: As I understand the Crick theory of panspermia, it's a theory of how life spread through the universe...

    My point is merely that the universe is an open system and we may have already been "colonized", not once but several times. What would be a more logical way of colonizing the galaxy than to seed it with items that self-assemble into 'life' under the correct conditions? We simply don't recognize the fact with our tiny monkey brains yet -- we are still stuck in the 'projection of uniqueness' -- (i.e the theory that such a wonderful thing as the emergence of self-aware consciousness can only happen once) -- state. Little do we know.

    Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.

    ---Arthur Stanley Eddington

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
  161. They better hurry... by mihaibu · · Score: 0

    If they don't find us in a 10-20 years, the humans will cease to exist on this planet; yes, humans are intelligent, but that is not enough to destroy themselves

  162. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by king-manic · · Score: 1

    As a former genetics students working with bacteria. I can safely say evolution is fast. The problem is peoples intuition have troubles with things beyond or below our normal scales of size and multitude. The real problem is creationists tend to have a vanishngly small ability to grasps things outside of their immediate enviroment and size factor, not evolution "supporters" ability to imagine how slow evolution is. Take 1/1 million multiple by a million units = hightly likely.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
  163. Why is a few mulitplications called a *simulation* by viking80 · · Score: 1

    The diameter of the galaxy is 100,000 lightyears across. Fastest probes today travel 80000km/hr or 0.00007c, so that adds up to 1.3 billion years.

    At 0.1c, it would take 1 million years

    Not sure where the need for a computer simulation is.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  164. There is no way to reach a conclusion. by master_p · · Score: 1

    Alien intelligent life may exist out there, but there are many factors to take into consideration:

    1) aliens have found us, but we can not find them, because they are very advanced and know very well how to hide.
    2) aliens have found us, but we can not find them, because we can not recognize what we see.
    3) aliens have found us, but we can not find them, because we do not have the tools to observe them, even though they do not hide.
    4) aliens have found us, considered us unimportant, went on to the next system.
    5) aliens have found us, but some sort of prime directive forbids them from first contact until we discover advanced spaceflight.
    6) aliens have not found us, because they have not yet reached this part of the galaxy.
    7) aliens have not found us, because civilisations tent to destroy themselves when they reach a critical level of technology.

    Perhaps there are more factors...the real conclusion is that the absence of 'first contact' is no proof for absence of alien intelligent life outside of our solar system. We are simply too primitive to tell what is happening.

  165. When discussing probes ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... do you have to be so anal?

  166. Missing options! by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

    m. A spaceship powered by the weird mathematics encountered in Italian restaurents.
    n. The former Mars moon Phobos, turned into a giant ship complete with three artificial intel########<Spurious Interrupt - Breach Disabled> <Further Access Denied>

    --
    USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
  167. No, they haven't contacted us (would you?) by whitroth · · Score: 1

    And my best argument against the Our Gov't Is In Contact With Aliens/Has Captured UFOs is a complex one: let's ignore the folks who think that microwave ovens are UFO tech; we *know* where every bit of technology came from, and can trace back the scientific research behind it a hundred and fifty years, at least. If any of the contact/capture had been true, there would have been *something* that came literally out of nowhere, that we couldn't see where it came from.

                      mark "and would *you* want to contact us, with Bush 'in charge'?"

    "Beam us up, Scotty, there's *no* intelligent life here."

  168. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Lerc · · Score: 1

    Well there are two parts to evolution. Generating diversity and reducing diversity. Selection pressure can reduce the diversity extremely quickly. That's the fast part.

    I just skimmed the lizard article so I'm not sure of the changes spotted in that example but most examples of rapid evolution I have seen are simply changing the prominence of different parts of the existing diversity.

    In the timeline of life on earth all breeds of dogs turned up in a blink of an eye. While the changes look extreme, I'm not sure if there is anything at all that goes beyond simple scaling of existing features and changing of pigments. That's the easy stuff.

    --
    -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
  169. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by Lerc · · Score: 1

    So how long did it take for bacteria to go multicellular (actual questions, I don't knnw). How many generations did that take? To properly calculate how many tries it took you should probably count all of the direct clones of anything along the successful branch.

    Is that what you would call a big number?

    --
    -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
  170. Re:self replicating machines will inevitably evolv by king-manic · · Score: 1

    So how long did it take for bacteria to go multicellular (actual questions, I don't knnw). How many generations did that take? To properly calculate how many tries it took you should probably count all of the direct clones of anything along the successful branch.

    Is that what you would call a big number?


    I'm not exactly sure what your asking. A multi cellular change can happen fairly quickly. A large predatory bacteria engulfs but does not fully digest a prey and we now have a pseudo multicellular organism. Or we have a bacteria that developes a outer shell and the outer shell grows into other bacteria of the same type. (diatoms) ect.. The calculation of how likely that is and how many generaltions are all probability. In bacteria, if it happens once, thats enough. So like the lottery it may take only 1 try might tak 49 choose 6 tries. For things like trying to induce the point mutation for a change in the structure of cell walls that allow bacteria to ignore certain anti-biotics. It's about 1/1,000,000 (really rough figure). Basically it often occurs once every culture disk we used and tested; and that bacteria strain would then be the only survivor. So basically a single generation on a standard petri dish. The rate of mutation in animals is pretty finite. Anythign thats not instantly fatal or inhibits reproduction egts passed on. Any specific mutation is unlikely but we are very veyr highly likely to mutate. So every person carry some set of minor mutation.

    I think your trying to lead into the blind watch maker fallacy. Just to let you know there is no end point of desired features. It's just code mutations that lead to altered enzymes/protiens ect... They may have phenotipic effects. These are then selected for. We all have altered code. depending on what it is, that determins if we show the mutation.

    --
    "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."