5 ms·

> Instead, the basis of the timescape model is that, in fact, we see in the universe around us today that there are giant cosmic structures, enormous filaments

> Instead, the basis of the timescape model is that, in fact, we see in the universe around us today that there are giant cosmic structures, enormous filaments and walls filled with galaxies and galaxy clusters. And in between those filaments and walls we have giant voids of nothing. Could explain we haven't found life elsewhere?

XorNot 1y ago
The scale here is "thousands of galaxies". The problem with where's the other life is already enormous due to the size of our one galaxy.
chneu 1y ago
Who says we haven't? We have absolutely no real idea what life will look like. What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them? Also, the universe is likely so large that we'll never encounter life like us.
- dgfl 1y ago
  Are you proposing that atoms are organisms and/or that astronomical objects may be organisms? I feel like you are just inflating the meaning of “life” without justifying why. Defining it properly is a very interesting problem, but I think this is an extremely active field of study. Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought.
  - iinnPP 1y ago
    It seems they are stating that life elsewhere may be vastly different than life on Earth. How did you arrive at your understanding of the comment?
    - mr_mitm 1y ago
      I arrived at the same understanding as GP due to this line: > What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them?
  - lukan 1y ago
    "Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought." Questions usually can be productive. To answer it, we have to look up and apply the (debated) definitions of life and atoms in our understanding clearly don't meet it. But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole. We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.
    - mr_mitm 1y ago
      We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder. > We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know. That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.
      - lukan 1y ago
        "That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
        mr_mitm 1y ago
        > quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.
exe34 1y ago
> Could explain we haven't found life elsewhere? Or maybe we just haven't looked very far at all.
- merek 1y ago
  Nor for very long.
aswegs8 1y ago
We did recently find something very promising https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o
- philipov 1y ago
  As was discussed at the time, that news was overhyped. The finding is not strong evidence of life, it's strong evidence that we don't fully understand how that molecule gets formed. And the most recent news on that front is that the finding itself is being challenged.
  - matthewdgreen 1y ago
    Every finding gets challenged, and that challenge always becomes news. Trying to evaluate the progress of a scientific debate based on news stories is like guessing the record of a soccer team based on a couple of viral goal clips.
    - philipov 1y ago
      All the more reason why it's too early to be saying anything about that discovery.
chongli 1y ago
No. We’re only searching for life in a tiny area around the Sun within our galaxy, the Milky Way. To find life we first need to find planets, which involves looking at stars over extended periods of time to detect tiny dips in brightness (transit method) or tiny wobbles causing minute redshift-blueshift cycles (doppler shift method). Those cosmic filament structures are on the scale of millions and billions of galaxies over distances far larger than the size of a single galaxy. We can’t even resolve individual stars beyond our Local Group of galaxies and still most of the stars within the Milky Way are too far to use our exoplanet detection techniques (2 of them mentioned previously). Finally, to search for life we’ve been attempting to search for spectral absorption lines of the gases in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, which involves recording a spectrograph during the transit method. This only works for stars with their orbital planes edge-on to us so that we can actually detect the planetary transits and record enough light from them over time to see how the spectrograph changes during the transit events.

XorNot 1y ago

The scale here is "thousands of galaxies". The problem with where's the other life is already enormous due to the size of our one galaxy.

chneu 1y ago

Who says we haven't? We have absolutely no real idea what life will look like. What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them? Also, the universe is likely so large that we'll never encounter life like us.

dgfl 1y ago
Are you proposing that atoms are organisms and/or that astronomical objects may be organisms? I feel like you are just inflating the meaning of “life” without justifying why. Defining it properly is a very interesting problem, but I think this is an extremely active field of study. Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought.
- iinnPP 1y ago
  It seems they are stating that life elsewhere may be vastly different than life on Earth. How did you arrive at your understanding of the comment?
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    I arrived at the same understanding as GP due to this line: > What if there are already organisms that are so large or small that we just can't comprehend them?
- lukan 1y ago
  "Saying “what if subatomic particles are actually living organisms” is not a productive line of thought." Questions usually can be productive. To answer it, we have to look up and apply the (debated) definitions of life and atoms in our understanding clearly don't meet it. But since we only know so very little when going really small or really big, I do say it is an interesting thought to give room for quark or dark matter based life, or the theoretical organism of a black hole. We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know.
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    We do know a lot about the very small and the very big, though. We understand quark interactions extremely well. It's very hard to imagine interactions at that scale complex enough to yield something anyone would be comfortable calling "life". The defining property of dark matter is no or only weak interaction (which we also understand very well), so imagining life there becomes even harder. > We simply don't know and we will never know, if we think we already know. That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. As is "just asking questions" which lack support by even a shred of plausibility.
    - lukan 1y ago
      "That's a very defeatist and intellectually lazy point of view. " In my opinion it is the opposite. Claiming we understand life and quarks and quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me. I am open for it. That doesn't mean I see indications for it, just that I am open for the concept. If I would not be open for unexpected ideas, I would never get them. And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. Well, I heard of some who do, but they are mostly not taken seriously by the rest. So sure, we do know a lot. But understanding it?
      - mr_mitm 1y ago
        > quarks can therefore not be part of subatomic life is the lazy approach to me For the record, I wrote "very hard to imagine". If you claim it can be possible, it is you who must produce at least a suggestion on how it could be possible. > And correct me if I am wrong, but I never met a scientist who claimed to really understand quantum mechanics. I know that's a popular trope, but what they usually mean is that they don't understand it on an intuitive level. You can understand the math of it just fine. QM is by far the most successful theory we ever had and laid the foundations for the transistor, lasers, CCD chips, solar panels, MRIs, and much more. It's responsible for arguably the biggest transformation of society of all times. You don't get there without understanding even the smallest nook of that theory. Maybe we have different definitions of what it means to understand something, but that's not a discussion I'm interested it.

exe34 1y ago

> Could explain we haven't found life elsewhere? Or maybe we just haven't looked very far at all.

merek 1y ago
Nor for very long.

aswegs8 1y ago

We did recently find something very promising https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c39jj9vkr34o

philipov 1y ago
As was discussed at the time, that news was overhyped. The finding is not strong evidence of life, it's strong evidence that we don't fully understand how that molecule gets formed. And the most recent news on that front is that the finding itself is being challenged.
- matthewdgreen 1y ago
  Every finding gets challenged, and that challenge always becomes news. Trying to evaluate the progress of a scientific debate based on news stories is like guessing the record of a soccer team based on a couple of viral goal clips.
  - philipov 1y ago
    All the more reason why it's too early to be saying anything about that discovery.

chongli 1y ago

No. We’re only searching for life in a tiny area around the Sun within our galaxy, the Milky Way. To find life we first need to find planets, which involves looking at stars over extended periods of time to detect tiny dips in brightness (transit method) or tiny wobbles causing minute redshift-blueshift cycles (doppler shift method). Those cosmic filament structures are on the scale of millions and billions of galaxies over distances far larger than the size of a single galaxy. We can’t even resolve individual stars beyond our Local Group of galaxies and still most of the stars within the Milky Way are too far to use our exoplanet detection techniques (2 of them mentioned previously). Finally, to search for life we’ve been attempting to search for spectral absorption lines of the gases in the atmosphere of an exoplanet, which involves recording a spectrograph during the transit method. This only works for stars with their orbital planes edge-on to us so that we can actually detect the planetary transits and record enough light from them over time to see how the spectrograph changes during the transit events.