6 ms·

The Drake Equation is filled with assumptions, like life must appear on a planet in the Goldilocks zone of a star. The whole equation has only one datapoint to

The Drake Equation is filled with assumptions, like life must appear on a planet in the Goldilocks zone of a star. The whole equation has only one datapoint to extrapolate from. Tweak the equation's parameters and it will predict universes that only have one civilization per galaxy or worse! We have no way of knowing what those parameters are because we haven't seen other examples. A major reason we are interested in Europa is because it might have underground oceans. Hypothetically, through tidal forces with Jupiter, the moon's core is hot enough to create oceans under the ice crust. Combined with hydrothermal vents you have the possibility for deep sea life similar to our own deep oceans. The Drake Equation does not predict this possibility.

mr_mitm 1y ago
The Goldilocks zone doesn't enter the Drake equation at all. As a reminder, this is the equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation It makes very few assumptions.
- crazygringo 1y ago
  I'm assuming they were referring to this term: > n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets. The fact that the planet is neither too hot nor too cold would seem to be a major component of this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    That's just your interpretation. Take the equation at its face value and it does allow for life originating around some deep sea vents, like JamesLeonis speculated.
    - acestus5 1y ago
      yeah you are right the Drake equation does not assume Goldilocks zone.
      - stouset 1y ago
        It goes the other way around. The Goldilocks zone is a shorthand attempt at helping us guess how many planets out there are capable of supporting life.
    - DennisP 1y ago
      It does seem unlikely that such life forms would ever become spacefaring.
      - rowanG077 1y ago
        That's a separate term in the equation.
        DennisP 1y ago
        Yes, but we should consider these linkages when setting values. If we assume that volcanic vent life is very unlikely to become spacefaring, we should either leave it out of the "life" term, or leave it in but lower the probability of the "becomes spacefaring" term.
- buran77 1y ago
  The equation itself makes no assumptions. But anyone trying to calculate something with it must. The last five factors in the equation will be filled in by assumptions based entirely on one data point, life on Earth. From your link: ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets. fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point. fi = the fraction of planets with life that go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations). fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space. L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Can you define any one of those without assumptions, in a scientifically proven way?
  - mr_mitm 1y ago
    Thanks, I read that part before I shared it. It's pretty clear to me, these are pretty well defined quantities, just hard to measure. What is unclear is perhaps the definition of life. But at no point does it assume a planet must be in the Goldilocks zone. So perhaps you want to point out those assumptions you are talking about to me, because I don't see them. Edit: the parent post has been edited substantially after I replied.
    - the_af 1y ago
      How can you extrapolate those terms from a single planet with known life without making assumptions?
      - mr_mitm 1y ago
        I can't, but the equation itself doesn't to that. The assumptions are up to the reader to make. That's why I think that the equation isn't particularly useful.
    - buran77 1y ago
      > these are pretty well defined quantities, just hard to measure. They are "defined" conceptually, in words, not in physical quantities. It assumes we can assign a known value to any of that when we don't and likely never will. It's like saying "Let X answer the unanswerable question. X is the answer". > at no point does it assume a planet must be in the Goldilocks zone You could say it implies it with fl. > Edit: the parent post has been edited substantially after I replied. Only for legibility.
- hotstickyballs 1y ago
  The biggest assumption is that it assumes only a single path to intelligent life.
bethekidyouwant 1y ago
Not really there’s always gonna be water comets in the frost zone.
corimaith 1y ago
Even if you only had a handful of civilizations, the sheer time that has passed and size of the universe should mean that life should still be alot more apparent. With sublight velocities achievable today, I recall it would only take around a million years for a Von Newmann probe to cover the entire galaxy. Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? Another point I feel is that proliferation of life should be an self-reinforcing affair, for intelligent life even more so. A spacefaring nation may terraform or just seed planets, and these in time will replicate similar behaviors. At a certain point, a galaxy teeming with life should be very hard to reverse given all the activity. A life itself isn't necessarily evolved from biology, AI machine lifeforms should also well suited to proliferate, yet we don't see them anyways.
- fooker 1y ago
  > Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? Time, not space, is your answer here. Two reasons - (1) civilizations might not survive long enough to do this. (2) 13 billion years is a long time. So you have the reciprocal of that as the chances to be in the right year to see such a probe. And with results from the new telescope we now have hints that the 13 billion number is bogus, the universe is likely far older.
- mr_toad 1y ago
  At some point replicative drift will set in. How many replications is two million years? How long before the probes evolve? How long before they speciate? How long before a species turns on itself?
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  > With sublight velocities achievable today, I recall it would only take around a million years for a Von Newmann probe to cover the entire galaxy. Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? What are the incentives to build and deploy such a thing though? We as a civilization fail to fund things that have a ROI of more than a few years, how are you going to fund something that pays off after a million year?
adastra22 1y ago
FYI just about every outer solar system moon or planetoid has a liquid ocean somewhere underneath. Europa is neither exceptional or even that interesting anymore.
raverbashing 1y ago
Yup The fundamental problem with the Drake equation is that it's frequentist, not Bayesian Hence why you get too high sensitivity to parameters you have no way of having an estimate with a small margin of error We "don't care" about how many civilisations are out there, we care to the point where we can interact with them. As mentioned, it has several assumptions. "Rate of birth of sun like stars" means nothing. You can "always" have an exception for life that will throw the data off: "star too bright but with a hot Jupiter tidally locked in front of your moon, shielding it" etc
- antonvs 1y ago
  > star too bright but with a hot Jupiter tidally locked in front of your moon, shielding it It seems unlikely that such exceptions would amount to more than part of a reasonable margin of error.
  - raverbashing 1y ago
    It is very likely that Earth itself is the exception of the exception and is part of a "margin of error"

mr_mitm 1y ago

The Goldilocks zone doesn't enter the Drake equation at all. As a reminder, this is the equation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation It makes very few assumptions.

crazygringo 1y ago
I'm assuming they were referring to this term: > n_e = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets. The fact that the planet is neither too hot nor too cold would seem to be a major component of this term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitable_zone
- mr_mitm 1y ago
  That's just your interpretation. Take the equation at its face value and it does allow for life originating around some deep sea vents, like JamesLeonis speculated.
  - acestus5 1y ago
    yeah you are right the Drake equation does not assume Goldilocks zone.
    - stouset 1y ago
      It goes the other way around. The Goldilocks zone is a shorthand attempt at helping us guess how many planets out there are capable of supporting life.
  - DennisP 1y ago
    It does seem unlikely that such life forms would ever become spacefaring.
    - rowanG077 1y ago
      That's a separate term in the equation.
      - DennisP 1y ago
        Yes, but we should consider these linkages when setting values. If we assume that volcanic vent life is very unlikely to become spacefaring, we should either leave it out of the "life" term, or leave it in but lower the probability of the "becomes spacefaring" term.
buran77 1y ago
The equation itself makes no assumptions. But anyone trying to calculate something with it must. The last five factors in the equation will be filled in by assumptions based entirely on one data point, life on Earth. From your link: ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets. fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point. fi = the fraction of planets with life that go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations). fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space. L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space. Can you define any one of those without assumptions, in a scientifically proven way?
- mr_mitm 1y ago
  Thanks, I read that part before I shared it. It's pretty clear to me, these are pretty well defined quantities, just hard to measure. What is unclear is perhaps the definition of life. But at no point does it assume a planet must be in the Goldilocks zone. So perhaps you want to point out those assumptions you are talking about to me, because I don't see them. Edit: the parent post has been edited substantially after I replied.
  - the_af 1y ago
    How can you extrapolate those terms from a single planet with known life without making assumptions?
    - mr_mitm 1y ago
      I can't, but the equation itself doesn't to that. The assumptions are up to the reader to make. That's why I think that the equation isn't particularly useful.
  - buran77 1y ago
    > these are pretty well defined quantities, just hard to measure. They are "defined" conceptually, in words, not in physical quantities. It assumes we can assign a known value to any of that when we don't and likely never will. It's like saying "Let X answer the unanswerable question. X is the answer". > at no point does it assume a planet must be in the Goldilocks zone You could say it implies it with fl. > Edit: the parent post has been edited substantially after I replied. Only for legibility.
hotstickyballs 1y ago
The biggest assumption is that it assumes only a single path to intelligent life.

bethekidyouwant 1y ago

Not really there’s always gonna be water comets in the frost zone.

corimaith 1y ago

Even if you only had a handful of civilizations, the sheer time that has passed and size of the universe should mean that life should still be alot more apparent. With sublight velocities achievable today, I recall it would only take around a million years for a Von Newmann probe to cover the entire galaxy. Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? Another point I feel is that proliferation of life should be an self-reinforcing affair, for intelligent life even more so. A spacefaring nation may terraform or just seed planets, and these in time will replicate similar behaviors. At a certain point, a galaxy teeming with life should be very hard to reverse given all the activity. A life itself isn't necessarily evolved from biology, AI machine lifeforms should also well suited to proliferate, yet we don't see them anyways.

fooker 1y ago
> Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? Time, not space, is your answer here. Two reasons - (1) civilizations might not survive long enough to do this. (2) 13 billion years is a long time. So you have the reciprocal of that as the chances to be in the right year to see such a probe. And with results from the new telescope we now have hints that the 13 billion number is bogus, the universe is likely far older.
mr_toad 1y ago
At some point replicative drift will set in. How many replications is two million years? How long before the probes evolve? How long before they speciate? How long before a species turns on itself?
littlestymaar 1y ago
> With sublight velocities achievable today, I recall it would only take around a million years for a Von Newmann probe to cover the entire galaxy. Such a probe is quite conceivable, so why isn't there more evidence of such probes everywhere? What are the incentives to build and deploy such a thing though? We as a civilization fail to fund things that have a ROI of more than a few years, how are you going to fund something that pays off after a million year?

adastra22 1y ago

FYI just about every outer solar system moon or planetoid has a liquid ocean somewhere underneath. Europa is neither exceptional or even that interesting anymore.

raverbashing 1y ago

Yup The fundamental problem with the Drake equation is that it's frequentist, not Bayesian Hence why you get too high sensitivity to parameters you have no way of having an estimate with a small margin of error We "don't care" about how many civilisations are out there, we care to the point where we can interact with them. As mentioned, it has several assumptions. "Rate of birth of sun like stars" means nothing. You can "always" have an exception for life that will throw the data off: "star too bright but with a hot Jupiter tidally locked in front of your moon, shielding it" etc

antonvs 1y ago
> star too bright but with a hot Jupiter tidally locked in front of your moon, shielding it It seems unlikely that such exceptions would amount to more than part of a reasonable margin of error.
- raverbashing 1y ago
  It is very likely that Earth itself is the exception of the exception and is part of a "margin of error"