9 ms·
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:/
by 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 agoI'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 agoThat'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 agoyeah you are right the Drake equation does not assume Goldilocks zone.
- stouset 1y agoIt 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 agoIt does seem unlikely that such life forms would ever become spacefaring.
- rowanG077 1y agoThat's a separate term in the equation.
- DennisP 1y agoYes, 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 agoThe 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 agoThanks, 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 agoHow can you extrapolate those terms from a single planet with known life without making assumptions?
- mr_mitm 1y agoI 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 agoThe biggest assumption is that it assumes only a single path to intelligent life.