Slashdot Mirror


Gamma-ray Bursts May Explain Fermi's Paradox

An anonymous reader writes: A new study confirms the potential hazard of nearby gamma-ray bursts. It quantifies the probability of an event near Earth, and more generally in the Milky Way and other galaxies over time: "[Evolved] life as it exists on Earth could not take place in almost any galaxy that formed earlier than about five billion years after the Big Bang." This could explain the Fermi's paradox, or why we don't see billion-year-old civilizations all around us.

24 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Or maybe it's because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unchecked technology wipes out the technologists.

    1. Re:Or maybe it's because by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed. My theory is that many of those mysterious gamma-ray bursts are civilizations earning a Galactic Darwin award.

      "Hey look, we can create mini anti-black-holes in our la ~ ^ & [NO CARRIER]

    2. Re:Or maybe it's because by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Funny

      It does not wipe them out, each civilization reaches a point where its porn and virtual reality are sufficiently advanced.

      "Hey look, we can create totally realistic sex partners in our virtu--- [ FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP ]

  2. Not really. by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This does not really resolve fermi's paradox. It just helps define fermi's paradox.

    The human race has been in mostly the same state physiologically for more than 10,000 years-- That is to say, you could clone a person who lived 10,000 years ago, and never tell them their origins, and they would integrate into our society without problem.

    Our civilization has been prevented from leaving the earth by our own silliness. Our big push out of a major duldrum of ignorance has been a bittersweet one; After the renaissance, we discovered that we were capable of much more than we had. We focused on that, and coined a now much maligned term: "Progress."

    For the better part of the past 2 centuries, humans were focused on attaining such "Progress", and technological advancement grew at previously unprecedented speeds. We literally went from covered wagons and horses to nuclear power in 200 years.

    It wasn't biology holding humans back from this rapid achievement-- It was attitude and social conventions. Things like warring over who's god has the biggest dick, or over who has the most money. (Things we STILL fight about to this day!) When there is a major social focus to improve, we have historically demonstrated the ability to do it.

    If we can thus do this-- Go from horse drawn conveyances to nuclear energy in 200 years-- then there is very little reason to expect other potential civilizations from doing so as well, and perhaps not having spent quite as much time arguing over who's god has the mightiest member.

    Yet, when we look up into the sky, we dont find any. We strain with our radio telescopes, and hear only the strange EM flux of gas giants, the hissing and popping of stars, and the screams of magnetars.

    This finding does not settle Fermi's paradox. It just sets a slightly smaller boundry.

    1. Re:Not really. by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, it doesn't explain Fermi's Paradox, it merely adds another term to it. In all of those various probabilities, apparently there is something like a 10% chance of not getting taken out by a gamma burst in half-a-billion years. I would also expect the odds to get better as a given galaxy "settles down", generating fewer big, hot stars and more smaller, calmer ones. Some neighborhoods are probably rougher too. I wouldn't wait around to settle Trantor, near the center of our galaxy.

      Second, I wouldn't consider intergalactic contact in any serious way - the distances are bad enough for interstellar, do we really want to add a few more orders of magnitude?

      Third, our presence establishes our galaxy as one of the more benign ones. There is at least one neighborhood that has been sufficiently peaceful for the last half-billion hears. Last I knew, there were no supernova candidates close enough to cause that kind of trouble any time soon, either.

      Fourth, I'll focus on your word "silliness", which I think you meant as an understatement. There is conceivably a chance that we are under observation, and rank as "too silly" for any contact. The Earth has had an oxygen atmosphere for the last half-billion years, and we're on the verge of being able to detect other such atmospheres on other worlds such as Kepler has found. It's not a bad assumption that any civilization capable of interstellar travel is also better at planetary surveys than us. If they're there and within a few thousand light-years, they know something worth seeing is probably here.

      At this point in physics we're stuck at the Standard Model. We have many theories that move beyond, but no facts to select among them, and many of the experiments would be incredibly expensive. But let's say one day we saw a "warp signature", it's quite possible that we could immediately discard half of those theories. (By "warp signature" I really mean physical evidence of truly advanced technology.) IF there were here watching us, and seeing our "silliness" as well as the scientific acumen of some, they would be especially careful that we see no such evidence.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Not really. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      First, us humans prefer killing each other to science. This is a proven fact.
      Second, humanity did not go from Horses to Nukes, a very very small percent of the population did it, those geniuses have everyone else standing on their coat-tails.

      The next leap will be by a very small group that is significantly more enlightened than the rest of the 99.95% of the population. If those people are benevolent, then everyone enjoys the fruits. If they are not....... Well, things can go very differently.

      Currently with how education is going, the general population is becoming more uneducated every year. WE do not glorify learning, but instead glorify morons that can carry a ball, or can sing a tune. And we Vilify in society those that do love learning and are very smart.

      Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. And if an advanced civilization stumbled across us, they would probably wipe us out to make the rest of the universe safer. We as a species love to hate others, we love murder, war, and control. WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Not really. by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need to study up on the history of technology and civilization, steady stream of advances were made over thousands of years not hundreds, including the widespread use of written language four thousand years ago.

    4. Re:Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Technological progress has been much more continuous over those 10,000 years. It didn't jump from Sumerian technology to nuclear power in just 200 years. Metallurgy (copper, then bronze, then iron, then steel), the wheel, use of coal, glassblowing, Euclidean geometry, algebra, trigonometry, calculus, physics, astronomy, chemistry, windmills, the Lateen sails, compass, telescopes, microscopes, a place-holding number system, movable type printing presses, gunpowder weapondry, the arch and dome, aqueducts, cement, paper, batteries, all of them occurring in the period between 10,000 and 200 years ago. It might just be a matter of population growth to sustain such division of labor. Yes, the big jump was the rise of empirical science, but that is older than 200 years. Progress accelerates, so it's not surprising that it took awhile to get the ball rolling. It wasn't religion that held it back. It just takes awhile to pick up steam and for enough innovation to accumulate to put the separate pieces together. No, Sumer could not have gone from where it was to nuclear power in only 200 years. That's bullshit. It may naturally also take time for social organizations to evolve into forms that allow for the rise of a middle class of sufficient size that can do the division of labor thing, instead of scrounging for mere survival.

    5. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Total bollocks.

      Nuclear propulsion could easily lift hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of tonnes of cargo into space, and had been demonstrated at near full scale. See NERVA and Project Orion, both of which were so technically successful that congress canceled them as to avoid having to fund true space colonization and development.

      Nuclear propulsion also has the potentially to travel at relativistic speeds, potentially allowing travel to near by stars within a human lifetime.

      I quote, "The reference [Orion] design was to be constructed of steel using submarine-style construction with a crew of more than 200 and a vehicle takeoff weight of several thousand tons. This low-tech single-stage reference design would reach Mars and back in four weeks from the Earth's surface (compared to 12 months for NASA's current chemically powered reference mission). The same craft could visit Saturn's moons in a seven-month mission (compared to chemically powered missions of about nine years)." (Wikipedia)

      It's not my fault that politicians have decided that space propulsion should not advance significantly beyond chemical power, effectively being stupidly big and advanced firecrackers.

      This is not new technology, this was developed in the 50s and 60s. Has development continued, I have no doubt that we would have industrial space stations, reasonable interplanetary travel (as in weeks/months instead of years/decades), and man would currently be planning to launch a multimillion ton expedition from the asteroid belt to nearby stars with confirmed exoplanets. The only reason we don't take advantage of space resources, and zero gravity manufacturing is because it takes $20000+ per kilo to get a payload into orbit. Drop that to $500, and everything changes dramatically.

      The problems with real space exploration are speed and payload mass limitations. Nuclear energy solved both of these problems decades ago.

    6. Re:Not really. by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 4, Funny

      Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. And if an advanced civilization stumbled across us, they would probably wipe us out to make the rest of the universe safer. We as a species love to hate others, we love murder, war, and control. WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.

      You're right. We should find all those ignorant, warlike motherfuckers and kill them.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    7. Re:Not really. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, us humans prefer killing each other to science. This is a proven fact.

      Really? How did the arrangements for that experience go? Subject gets to choose between a test tube or a bound assistant and a (hopefully fake) knife?

      Second, humanity did not go from Horses to Nukes, a very very small percent of the population did it, those geniuses have everyone else standing on their coat-tails.

      A small part of the population did experiments on uranium, while the rest mined that uranium, enriched it, built the roads that carried it from the mine to the lab, etc. Accusing a tailor of riding on the coattails he made is rather absurd.

      The next leap will be by a very small group that is significantly more enlightened than the rest of the 99.95% of the population. If those people are benevolent, then everyone enjoys the fruits. If they are not....... Well, things can go very differently.

      The invention to trigger the next leap will be by some group that is supported by others, allowing them to focus on something besides where their next meal will come from. After it has been made, it will be turned into something actually usable by other people, manufactured by yet others, distributed by yet other people along communication and transfer infrastructure built by, you guessed it, other people...

      Heroic fantasies are just that: fantasies.

      WE do not glorify learning, but instead glorify morons that can carry a ball, or can sing a tune. And we Vilify in society those that do love learning and are very smart.

      People respect people who can provide something useful, be it entertainment, a focus for a cultural bonding event, or a cure for cancer. If you aren't respected as much as you think you deserve, it's usually because you aren't doing anything to earn it. Merely being smart and learned is no more worthy of respect than being richr; it's what you're doing with it that earns - or doesn't - the respect.

      Honestly Humanity is a joke, almost a cancer. And if an advanced civilization stumbled across us, they would probably wipe us out to make the rest of the universe safer. We as a species love to hate others, we love murder, war, and control. WE thrive on hating those that are different or think or worship different.

      Humans, in general, love thinking they're better than someone else, since that's easier than self-improvement. Sometimes that manifests as merely dismissing the entire species as "riding on the coattails" of a special few ubermenschen, and sometimes the delusion reaches the point of wanting to get rid of some specific group of perceived parasites. Either way, it's bullshit.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    8. Re:Not really. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is one potential candidate pointed right at us. Don't feel too bad, even the Bad Astronomy guy said "I might have been wrong" when he found out about WR 104. "Data show that the orientation of the spin-axis of the system, with respect to our vantage point from Earth, is almost exactly aligned. As nearly as we can tell, we are looking directly down upon the polar direction of the spinning binary stars. " It's about 8,000 light years away; it could have already blown and we're just waiting for our planetary extinction GRB wave front to hit us.

    9. Re: Not really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Total bollocks? :)

      There's one thing nuclear propulsion cannot do, and that's exactly what you claim it can do in your opening sentence: lift that payload from the surface to orbit.
      Project Orion would be using a long series of nuclear explosions to almost literally hammer the spaceship forward. You're proposing that as a LIFTOFF engine to be used within the atmosphere?

      Quoting from the same wikipedia page, one of the reasons why the project was shut down:
      "There were also ethical issues with launching such a vehicle within the Earth's magnetosphere: calculations showed that the fallout from each takeoff would kill between 1 and 10 people."

      That's from launching within the magnetosphere, not even close to launching from the surface.

      Yes, total bollocks, clearly :)

    10. Re: Not really. by jythie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It should also be noted that the '1-10' estimate was based off bomb types that did not exist and might not even be possible. The people working on Orion operated under the assumption that a particularly clean type of bomb could be developed and based all their estimates and calculations off that not yet existing technology. It was in the form of 'if we can develop a bomb with characteristics XYZ, then we can build a launch vehicle with characteristics ABC', but XYZ did not actually exist and does not represent known capabilities even today. Even within those numbers, we know a lot more about dispersal patterns and effects of radiation today than we did back then. Environmental science was at its infancy at the time and there was a lot of 'the environment can take it, treat XYZ as infinite' back then.

      So the environmental and health impact would likely be much greater than 1-10.

  3. Re:Simple Explanation by Zak3056 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More simple explanation: Life is out there, it's just too far away to detect, or to visit us--and will ALWAYS be so, because you can't cheat Newton and Einstein. An alternate "simplest" explanation (though less likely) is that we are first.

    To suggest that ET hasn't come to visit us because we are "too violent" or whatever, and that they are masking their presence is definitely NOT the simplest explanation--it suggests that every nearby alien species has agreed to isolate us, and every member of those civilizations is on board with the idea. No one is out there playing with an RF emitter in the VHF band, Harry Mudd hasn't stopped by and spilled the beans, no one's even accidentally done anything to give the game away.

    Sorry, I'm just not buying that.

    --
    What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
  4. Re:That might explain it. But it is more likely th by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then God was zapped by a gamma-burst, that's why he has been never observed so far.

    --
    Achille Talon
    Hop!
  5. Re:WTF by Headw1nd · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not really sure what you are saying, but TFS is the CERN courier, reporting on an article in Physical Review Letters. I think your clickbait fears are more than a little unfounded.

  6. I think you're America-culture centric by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some of the Asian countries do have cultures that love learning and the very smart. However, they have various other cultural problems.

    There's this old joke, heaven is English policemen, German scientists/engineers, Italian lovers, Swiss bankers, and French cooks. Hell is English cooks, German policemen, Italian bankers, Swiss lovers, and, well, I don't suppose French make bad scientists/engineers, but I'm botching the joke some. But the point is that if we could take the very best of all our cultures and fuse them, humanity would advance far faster.

    The Chinese have admirable work ethic and love of learning, however, their government needs improvement in inclusiveness and combating corruption. Some of the European governments are far superior in these respects (or so it seems from the outside.) The anti-intellectualism of the USA is rapidly degrading the US political system, its economy, its worldwide power, and its future prospect for maintaining dominance in science/tech/economy/military. However, again, not everywhere in the world does humanity glorify sports or singing and hate learning and intelligence.

    Perhaps we can hope that the negative aspect of humanity will cause their own self-destruction without destroying the best aspects of humanity.

  7. Re:WTF by dnavid · · Score: 5, Informative

    From TFS:

    They further estimate that GRBs prevent complex life like that on Earth in 90% of the galaxies.

    So, life possible on 10% of the galaxies means that those are none at all? What about our own one? This smells of clickbait.

    The Fermi paradox basically states that if life on Earth is the typical result of similar conditions, the probability is far higher that there are older, more advanced civilizations, and eventually on timescales far smaller than the universe has existed we should eventually have bumped into one of them as they spread throughout the galaxy, even the universe.

    The paper suggests two effects of gamma ray bursts that alter that calculation. First, a given location was more likely to be exposed to a gamma ray burst at earlier times in the universe, when the population of large hot stars was higher and overall density of the universe was higher. Therefore, its possible that even though the universe is 14 billion years old during a significant percentage of that time the universe was too dense and the frequency of gamma ray bursts too high to allow a sufficiently high technological civilization to arise. That's why there aren't any really old civilizations, or alternatively why there are so few that they tend to be very far away statistically. Second, even after the universe had expanded enough to make gamma ray bursts less likely to completely sterilize all planets everywhere its still the case that most parts of most galaxies are still too dense to avoid getting hit by them.

    So its possible the reason why we have not yet seen a very old highly advanced civilization is that the actual probability of one being old enough, and close enough, for us to have bumped into (or rather for them to have bumped into us) is a lot lower than we might assume, even if the conditions to initiate life are pretty common. Nearly all of them have been wiped out before they could advance to the point of being able to colonize on an interstellar level and avoid being driven to extinction by gamma ray bursts.

  8. How lethal are GRBs? by bromoseltzer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The abstract doesn't say how bad it is to be hit by a GRB beam. GRBs don't last for more than a couple of minutes. It seems that would fry the side of the planet facing the GRB, but the other side would be shielded from much of the radiation. So you zap half the lifeforms and maybe you boil some ocean. No doubt it's unpleasant on the dark side, but is it lethal?

    --
    Fiat Lux.
    1. Re:How lethal are GRBs? by St.Creed · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are some articles on the internet about this. Basically: one side would be fried, the atmosphere would be superheated, and you would have nasty smog all over earth afterwards, making sure that seeds wouldn't grow because Earth would be pretty dark. Oh, and the ozone layer would be stripped off, so the bottom of the ocean might be survivable but apart from that you'd want to be underground during daylight.

      In 2008 there was a GRB that occurred about 7.5 billion lightyears away - it was visible with the naked eye, and was aimed straight at Earth. Just imagine what something at 75000000 million lightyears would do - let alone at 7500, about where WR104 is.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  9. Re:WTF by kenwd0elq · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We used to wonder what in the hell was making these ultra-bright quasars; now we believe that they are "active" galactic cores which are in the process of forming a supermassive black hole in the centers. It's possible that two such black holes might form and orbit their mutual centers of gravity, but eventually they would merge. This merging is probably the source of the gamma ray bursts.

    Planets couldn't form until enough hydrogen had been fused into metals and expelled by supernova. Complex life couldn't form until there were enough different heavier elements. It's at least possible that early races and civilizations were exterminated by GRBs when their galaxies were new; it's even possible that intelligent life formed near the Galactic core of our own galaxy before the supermassive black hole formed. (Larry Niven may have been right! Thrints!) They were all killed in the GRB when our own galaxy shined like a quasar. Now that the Milky Way has settled down into gentle middle age, other races can develop.

    It may be unlikely, but it's possible that humans are the most advanced of these third-generation beings.

  10. Re:Speculations become facts now? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Fermi Paradox - that we don't see billion-year-old civilizations around us and we're not sure why - is a fact.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  11. Re:WTF by invid · · Score: 3, Informative

    99% of alien life can be undetectable for whatever reason. If 1% is expansionist, a representative of that 1% could colonize every star system in a galaxy the size of the Milky Way in less than 3 million years, a cosmic eye blink.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.