Slashdot Mirror


Aliens Are Probably Everywhere, Just Not Anywhere Nearby

rossgneumann writes If there's intelligent life in the cosmos, it's probably nowhere we can get to anytime soon. At least that's the finding of the astrobiologist who, for the first time in decades, has rendered a major update to the key formula scientists use to seek out interstellar life. That'd be the Drake equation, which was developed over half a century ago to determine where life might lurk in the universe. Using the new Kepler data, astrobiologist Amri Wandel did some calculations to estimate the density of life-bearing worlds in our corner of the universe.

17 of 334 comments (clear)

  1. Drake is Obtuse by vortex2.71 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've always felt that the Drake Equation is not worthy of the term 'equation' since its just a simple probabilistic estimate from multiplying a ton of other probabilities and instances together. Consider for instance, the Schrödinger equation, which has a differential formulation that provides solutions to so many physical situations that arise in quantum mechanics, or Maxwell's equations, which explain all of electrodynamics, including light, and were the inspiration for Einstein's theory of special relativity.

    1. Re:Drake is Obtuse by buchner.johannes · · Score: 5, Informative

      I've always felt that the Drake Equation is not worthy of the term 'equation' since its just a simple probabilistic estimate from multiplying a ton of other probabilities and instances together.

      It has a term on the left and a term on the right, and an equal sign in between. You can also see the Drake Equation as a Bayesian Network combined with a Poisson estimator for the mean (n*p).

      --
      NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    2. Re:Drake is Obtuse by idji · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F..., where you see that the Drake equation is a famous example of a Fermi problem, and discussion of errors in Fermi estimations. The goal is to get orders of magnitude, and Fermi problems help to understand where to go for better data, and so they are useful and practical. In this case, the Kepler mission is partly driven by the goal of improving data in the Drake equation to get better estimates.

    3. Re:Drake is Obtuse by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Unfortunately the Drake equation is worthless even for that purposes, as several terms in it cannot be estimated with any accuracy at all, and may in fact never be able to. You can't for example, extrapolate the probability of life evolving on a given planet when you only know of a single example of life evolving (extrapolation requires at least two instances). That leaves 4 terms in the Drake equation (fraction of planets that develop life, fraction of living planets that develop intelligence, fraction of those that end up sending signals into space (though those latter two should probably be condensed into a single term), and length they send out said signals) that cannot be estimated with any accuracy until we discover some instance of them. Which, rather ironically, means the Drake equation is worthless for any kinds of actual predictions unless we actually discover intelligent life, at which point the entire problem it was meant to illustrate becomes kind of moot (because we'll then know the answer that yes, there definitely is other intelligent life in the universe).

      You can sort-of put weak upper bounds on (at least some of) those terms, but we're a long way from being able to do that.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  2. Re:Astrobiologist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eh we have psychology even when we really haven't found a biological basis for consciousness.

  3. intelligent non-human life by Cardoor · · Score: 4, Insightful

    intelligent non-human life is most likely everywhere around us, but beyond the perceptual capacities of the vast majority of humans. Goldfish don't see you walking by their bowl, they just see a flash of light (and maybe color?) and fit it into the only perceptual framework they can grasp. Every species on the planet does this on a continuum of consciousness.. perceiving the less sentient, but blind to the nature of the more advanced. to think that we humans are conveniently at the very top of this continuum is both height of hubris, as well as statistically unlikely.

  4. Re:Birthday paradox? by bunratty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The birthday paradox would mean that even if planets with intelligent life are an average of thousands of light years from the nearest alien planet with intelligent life, the likelihood of one pair of planets with intelligent life existing much closer together than that is high. Those two planets would be like the two people who share a birthday in the paradox. That's a completely different idea than this article is about.

    --
    What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
  5. hang on by spike+hay · · Score: 4, Funny

    So you're telling me that things in other star systems are far away?

    --
    If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  6. Intelligent life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    If we are merely looking for intelligent life, we should be ecstatic about finding an octopus. They are quite intelligent, and you don't even have to leave the planet to find them.

    I mention this because what if we went to another planet in search of intelligent life and found something like an octopus? How would we communicate with them? My guess is by cooking them, and then eating them.

  7. Re:Life Everywhere out there? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Informative

    > 1. There needs to be a planet at an exact distance away from a star so things don't vaporize nor freeze

    Which presumes life is based on this temperature range, and not silica or some other process.

    > 2. There needs to be water

    Again, not mandatory for life. Water-based life, sure. But we have no way of knowing if most life is based on water.

    > 3. Atmosphere Oxygen-rich

    Again, not mandatory for life. For all we know, oxygen is regarded as a poison by most life.

    > 3.5. Atmosphere that isn't toxic

    What's toxic for you may not be toxic for most life. Life on gas giants may be quite different, or life in the moons of a gas giant. Oxygen is a fairly toxic gas.

    > 4.The Star needs to emit the right amount of energy so not to fry everything.

    True. But different life may have different energy ranges. Water has a limited range.

    > 5. Planet can't be too close to other stars.

    This is most likely the biggest one. Being too close to more than one star means higher range of fluctuation.

    > 6. Planet needs to have a core preferably iron to deflect electromagnetic radiation.

    Or life exists in gas giants which have thick atmospheres, or beneath the crust.

    > 7. Core also keeps ground warm which helps with supporting plant life.

    For all we know, perhaps most intelligent life are avian in nature. Birdlike aliens who regard us as crippled freaks.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  8. Re:Major update to formula? by kruach+aum · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thought experiments are not inherently meant to not give "real answers". Galileo used a thought experiment to prove Aristotle's theory of gravity wrong. Aristotle held that heavy objects fell faster than light ones. Galileo asked us to imagine a heavy object tied to a light object by a rope. Based on Aristotle's hypothesis, tying a light object to a heavy one would make the heavy one fall slower; as the light object would naturally fall more slowly than the heavy one, it would 'hold the heavy object back' in its fall. However, also based on Aristotle's hypothesis, tying a light object to a heavy object would make the heavy object fall faster, as its mass had now been increased by the mass of the light object. Given the fact that assuming the same premise ("Heavier objects fall faster than light ones") lead to opposite conclusions, Galileo reasoned that the premise had to be false, on the basis of the foregoing thought experiment.

  9. Re:Birthday paradox? by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Informative

    The birthday paradox depends on days being measured modulo 365. There is a finite bound on the birthdays available. That doesn't extend to planetary distances in three dimensional space over the span of the universe.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  10. Re:Paradoxes Be Damned by mythosaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...or it wouldn't, and it's not.

    Who knows.

    The idea that we've got it all figured out and we've reached the limits of what the physical world will allow is pretty narrow thinking.

    If humanity survives for another thousand years (let alone a million), think where we'll be. In the last hundred years we did more than the thousand before it. [*With thanks to the thousand before it.] What happens next?

  11. Coincidence or a factor? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact that we are in a small galactic cluster, per typical cluster, suggests its small size has protected us from being visited or invaded. If we had evolved in a medium or large cluster, the most likely case otherwise due to density, then perhaps we'd have encountered ET's by now. ET's are less likely to visit & colonize sparse clusters because it's too far to travel for too few resources.

    Copernican Principle and Anthropic Principle would suggest that some factor is involved to "keep us out" of denser clusters, where probability would otherwise place us. The boondocks are protecting us. Nobody is bothering us because we are stellar rednecks hidden in the difficult-to-reach woods.

  12. Welcome to the Actual Universe by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slow down there, buckwheat.

    The speed of light is a universal constant, and it doesn't actually make much sense to talk about exceeding it. You break causality and travel backwards in time. If you are sure that these problems can be overcome you have no idea what the problem is. Relativity is a description of the geometry of the universe, and explicitly covers what happens if you try to go really fast. It has been verified to a ridiculous number of decimal places. What you're talking about is equivalent to talking about exceeding the Planck constant or the fine structure constant.

    Science fiction is easier and more fun to read than science, but you should probably spend some time reading about this universe, because you're gonna be here for a while.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Welcome to the Actual Universe by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The speed of light is a universal constant, and it doesn't actually make much sense to talk about exceeding it.

      That may be. In fact, sadly, it's probably true.

      You break causality and travel backwards in time.

      Yes and no, respectively. Causality is the evidence that time is fixed. But you still wouldn't travel backwards in time. Going faster than light would only permit you to get to someplace before a distant observer saw the results, and change what happened. That breaks causality (as you say) because the distant observer who was watching you arrive would have always have had to have seen that, but you could have discussed what they saw with them before you left, before you got there, and before they saw what happened. But regardless of how fast you travel, you still can't go back in time. What happened on some other planet right now will still have happened, no matter how rapidly you get there. Even if you got there instantaneously, you would still be there right now, and never before now.

      Of course, that itself doesn't mean time travel is impossible, either! Causality may not be as fixed as we believe it to be! From our standpoint, we would never have experienced it in the way that we would have if history played out the same way every time. I don't actually believe this, I think that things happen just once, but it's still worth mentioning that if causality is self-repairing, then our memories would be congruent with the updated form of reality. Time travel by going really fast, however, that is impossible. The light that we see is not the event itself, it's simply how we perceive it. If you sped up light itself so that it went faster than light, you wouldn't perceive stuff that hadn't happened yet! You'd only perceive stuff closer to the time of the actual event than you would if light had been moving at the same old speed as usual.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Re:Birthday paradox? by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

    The birthday paradox depends on days being measured modulo 365. There is a finite bound on the birthdays available. That doesn't extend to planetary distances in three dimensional space over the span of the universe.

    The whole birthday "paradox" is a human failing of not taking into account the number of possible pairings, it doesn't have to be modulo anything. If you have a thousand planets with life with a one in a million chance to be close, what's the total probabiliy of two planets being close? 1000/1000000? Bzzzzzzt wrong answer, because there's 1000*999/2 = ~500000 possible pairs. So the actual chance is more like 50%, instead of 0,1%. Not that it has any practical application, because it's the odds of two alien planets being close. Earth's chances would still be one in a million per planet, just like the odds of any person having my birthday is roughly 1/365.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings