4 ms·

When you see things like these you have to think that we are not the only life in the entire existence and it is highly doubtful we are the only 'intelligent' l

by buugs 17y ago

When you see things like these you have to think that we are not the only life in the entire existence and it is highly doubtful we are the only 'intelligent' life in existence just by probability alone.

vaksel 17y ago
No doubt, the only reason there was any question about it in the past(before technology), was due to the fact that we are in the middle of nowhere(by galactic standards), and can only see a handful of other stars.
Batsu 17y ago
It's a shame we'll probably never come across intelligent life, unless some incredible developments are made in traveling space. The Drake Equation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ) estimates between 1 and 10 intelligent life forms in our galaxy. The unmanned probe Voyager 1 is the furthest Earth born object that we have radio contact with (probably without, as well) and was launched in late 1977. It has traveled less than 2 thousandths of a light year. The nearest star (other than the sun) is over 4 light years away, and our galaxy is something crazy like 100,000 light years across. The nearest similar galaxy is the Andromeda galaxy which is 25,000,000 light years away. In other news, I just recently finished an astronomy course.
- pp 17y ago
  Some say that the Drake Equation has too many variables that are impossible to even guess, let alone estimate. For example, here's a great article: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwar...
- andreyf 17y ago
  I never understood how exactly one figures out these three: f_l = the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop life f_i = the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop intelligent life f_c = the fraction of the above which are willing and able to communicate For f_l, we've got a sample size of one. For all we know, life as we know it might be a fluke which has an infinitesimal probability of occurring.
  - eru 17y ago
    Yes, but I guess, either we meet the aliens, or we will make our own. (Assuming we do not go extinct.)
  - thwarted 17y ago
    Infinitesimal is pretty large when considered in the context of infinity.
- rms 17y ago
  We do have theoretical technologies that could propel a ship or probe at speeds more reasonable for interstellar travel. We could certainly build them if we did something dramatic like cutting the US defense budget in half and putting the money towards space exploration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Well, you never know. If the universe really is holographic and we can find a way to move within that, then locality might come to seem like a quaint concept. I had a near-death experience some years back which left me with the gut feeling that our space is embedded within 5 dimension. It was pretty strange, but that's another story. For about 5 minutes after I came round I could see around things. If you think that sounds weird, you shoulda seen it from my side.
  - buddy420 17y ago
    I am fascinated, please tell us more.
- Ardit20 17y ago
  right, now ok, if it takes 25 million light years, and and in 40 years that voyager apparently only travelled 1 thousands light year away. How on earth,do they know how far it is? Can the telescope travel extend our sense faster than the light can travel? Because if not, then surely it would take 25 million years for us to find out how far it is? And if you will be lazy and ask me to wikipedia it, ave got an exam tomorrow :P. But it seems quite puzzling to me, puzzling enough to perhaps disregard the numbers. As for how big I feel? Ohh gigantic, bigger than the sun, I contain so many cells, and these cells contain so many cells and they probably contain so many cells, I am a giant universe so giant that I have within me so many universes.
- wlievens 17y ago
  The Drake Equation is missing something. If humans were to go extinct in, say, 100,000 years (arbitrary), the earth still has plenty of time left to evolve another intelligent species. That cycle could repeat itself dozens of times over the course of a planet's lifetime. The Drake Equation doesn't model this concept of "multiple windows of opportunity".
physcab 17y ago
I remember reading A Short History Of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson and one particular rambling that stuck with me was that the Earth had been through something like 7 extinction periods where 99% of all life had been eliminated. It was after all these extinction periods that life evolved to what it is today. That gives you another perspective--one that shows the possibility of life outside earth is pretty small. But I wonder if there is some probability that can take both of these factors into consideration.
- rjprins 17y ago
  Or pretty high, if you realize that 7 extinction events were not capable of completely eradicating life.
  - physcab 17y ago
    Yah. Good point. But if I remember correctly, Bill Bryson's argument was that it TOOK 7 extinction periods for life to evolve to what it is today. So if we're talking about more intelligent life forms than our own, then perhaps that probability is still small. Who knows though.
jerf 17y ago
Be that as it may, that's still an irrational reaction. We don't know what the odds of intelligent life are, and there's no guarantee that they are not comparable to the size of the universe... or even a long shot despite the size of the universe. For all the stars in all the solar systems in all the universe across all time, for as large as that number may be, you start stacking together independent requirements for life (galaxy with available stable orbits, water planet, habitable zone, mineral abundance, perhaps big moon, and this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg for feasible potential requirements) and the odds against can go up fast, too. As an example, it is hypothesized that only a spiral galaxy can support life, since only a spiral galaxy will have orbits that are not too close to the galactic center at some point. (Recently, there have been some suggestions that it may also be important not to be too far from it, either.) Right off the top, this eliminates a gigantic number of galaxies from contention. Certainly it leaves roughly an equal number still in contention (couldn't find precise frequency counts but 50% is close enough here), but even the mighty size of the Universe can't sustain an indefinite exponential culling. We still don't know. Just because there's a really big number on one side of the question that's visibly obvious, doesn't mean that a much more subtle but equally large number doesn't lie on the other side. (To save time, I've assumed "life as we know it". Feel free to substitute some other definition, though personally I'm yet to see a very convincing argument in favor of non-carbon, non-water intelligent life. YMMV.) Please be clear: I am not advocating the "we're alone" position. I'm advocating the "we truly don't know" position. There's a difference. (It may seem trite and old now, but I still think the Fermi Paradox is one of the most important questions of our time. The silliness of the Drake equation sort of got in the way, but it can be boiled down to: If intelligent life is easy and there's no terribly compelling reason why intelligent life can't at least populate the galaxy, why hasn't it? Note that "populate the galaxy" may and probably does take the form of some form of machine life, but I've seen no compelling reason to believe that's impossible yet.)
- rms 17y ago
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.ht... http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/9/8/263 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/9/8/263
- 17y ago
mseebach 17y ago
The most interesting part of it, IMHO, is time, not so much the distance and probability. We are new at being an intelligent species with organised science. Other intelligent life in the universe that we might hope to interact with, aren't less developed than us, but they might easily have 50.000 years or more on us. How do we know that there aren't already "aliens" that know about us? The time aspect also suggests that we have nothing to fear from aliens. If they've survived themselves for thousands of generations from where we are today, it's impossible that they don't have a viable and sustainable way of life, that doesn't require them to go "harvest" us :)
- Ardit20 17y ago
  or they might have discovered a way to travel fast into the galaxy by accident prior to being so developed otherwise.

by buugs 17y ago

vaksel 17y ago

No doubt, the only reason there was any question about it in the past(before technology), was due to the fact that we are in the middle of nowhere(by galactic standards), and can only see a handful of other stars.

Batsu 17y ago

It's a shame we'll probably never come across intelligent life, unless some incredible developments are made in traveling space. The Drake Equation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation ) estimates between 1 and 10 intelligent life forms in our galaxy. The unmanned probe Voyager 1 is the furthest Earth born object that we have radio contact with (probably without, as well) and was launched in late 1977. It has traveled less than 2 thousandths of a light year. The nearest star (other than the sun) is over 4 light years away, and our galaxy is something crazy like 100,000 light years across. The nearest similar galaxy is the Andromeda galaxy which is 25,000,000 light years away. In other news, I just recently finished an astronomy course.

pp 17y ago
Some say that the Drake Equation has too many variables that are impossible to even guess, let alone estimate. For example, here's a great article: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-alienscauseglobalwar...
andreyf 17y ago
I never understood how exactly one figures out these three: f_l = the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop life f_i = the fraction of the above which actually go on to develop intelligent life f_c = the fraction of the above which are willing and able to communicate For f_l, we've got a sample size of one. For all we know, life as we know it might be a fluke which has an infinitesimal probability of occurring.
- eru 17y ago
  Yes, but I guess, either we meet the aliens, or we will make our own. (Assuming we do not go extinct.)
- thwarted 17y ago
  Infinitesimal is pretty large when considered in the context of infinity.
rms 17y ago
We do have theoretical technologies that could propel a ship or probe at speeds more reasonable for interstellar travel. We could certainly build them if we did something dramatic like cutting the US defense budget in half and putting the money towards space exploration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetoplasmadynamic_thruster
anigbrowl 17y ago
Well, you never know. If the universe really is holographic and we can find a way to move within that, then locality might come to seem like a quaint concept. I had a near-death experience some years back which left me with the gut feeling that our space is embedded within 5 dimension. It was pretty strange, but that's another story. For about 5 minutes after I came round I could see around things. If you think that sounds weird, you shoulda seen it from my side.
- buddy420 17y ago
  I am fascinated, please tell us more.
Ardit20 17y ago
right, now ok, if it takes 25 million light years, and and in 40 years that voyager apparently only travelled 1 thousands light year away. How on earth,do they know how far it is? Can the telescope travel extend our sense faster than the light can travel? Because if not, then surely it would take 25 million years for us to find out how far it is? And if you will be lazy and ask me to wikipedia it, ave got an exam tomorrow :P. But it seems quite puzzling to me, puzzling enough to perhaps disregard the numbers. As for how big I feel? Ohh gigantic, bigger than the sun, I contain so many cells, and these cells contain so many cells and they probably contain so many cells, I am a giant universe so giant that I have within me so many universes.
wlievens 17y ago
The Drake Equation is missing something. If humans were to go extinct in, say, 100,000 years (arbitrary), the earth still has plenty of time left to evolve another intelligent species. That cycle could repeat itself dozens of times over the course of a planet's lifetime. The Drake Equation doesn't model this concept of "multiple windows of opportunity".

physcab 17y ago

I remember reading A Short History Of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson and one particular rambling that stuck with me was that the Earth had been through something like 7 extinction periods where 99% of all life had been eliminated. It was after all these extinction periods that life evolved to what it is today. That gives you another perspective--one that shows the possibility of life outside earth is pretty small. But I wonder if there is some probability that can take both of these factors into consideration.

rjprins 17y ago
Or pretty high, if you realize that 7 extinction events were not capable of completely eradicating life.
- physcab 17y ago
  Yah. Good point. But if I remember correctly, Bill Bryson's argument was that it TOOK 7 extinction periods for life to evolve to what it is today. So if we're talking about more intelligent life forms than our own, then perhaps that probability is still small. Who knows though.

jerf 17y ago

Be that as it may, that's still an irrational reaction. We don't know what the odds of intelligent life are, and there's no guarantee that they are not comparable to the size of the universe... or even a long shot despite the size of the universe. For all the stars in all the solar systems in all the universe across all time, for as large as that number may be, you start stacking together independent requirements for life (galaxy with available stable orbits, water planet, habitable zone, mineral abundance, perhaps big moon, and this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg for feasible potential requirements) and the odds against can go up fast, too. As an example, it is hypothesized that only a spiral galaxy can support life, since only a spiral galaxy will have orbits that are not too close to the galactic center at some point. (Recently, there have been some suggestions that it may also be important not to be too far from it, either.) Right off the top, this eliminates a gigantic number of galaxies from contention. Certainly it leaves roughly an equal number still in contention (couldn't find precise frequency counts but 50% is close enough here), but even the mighty size of the Universe can't sustain an indefinite exponential culling. We still don't know. Just because there's a really big number on one side of the question that's visibly obvious, doesn't mean that a much more subtle but equally large number doesn't lie on the other side. (To save time, I've assumed "life as we know it". Feel free to substitute some other definition, though personally I'm yet to see a very convincing argument in favor of non-carbon, non-water intelligent life. YMMV.) Please be clear: I am not advocating the "we're alone" position. I'm advocating the "we truly don't know" position. There's a difference. (It may seem trite and old now, but I still think the Fermi Paradox is one of the most important questions of our time. The silliness of the Drake equation sort of got in the way, but it can be boiled down to: If intelligent life is easy and there's no terribly compelling reason why intelligent life can't at least populate the galaxy, why hasn't it? Note that "populate the galaxy" may and probably does take the form of some form of machine life, but I've seen no compelling reason to believe that's impossible yet.)

rms 17y ago
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070814150630.ht... http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/9/8/263 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/9/8/263
17y ago

mseebach 17y ago

The most interesting part of it, IMHO, is time, not so much the distance and probability. We are new at being an intelligent species with organised science. Other intelligent life in the universe that we might hope to interact with, aren't less developed than us, but they might easily have 50.000 years or more on us. How do we know that there aren't already "aliens" that know about us? The time aspect also suggests that we have nothing to fear from aliens. If they've survived themselves for thousands of generations from where we are today, it's impossible that they don't have a viable and sustainable way of life, that doesn't require them to go "harvest" us :)

Ardit20 17y ago
or they might have discovered a way to travel fast into the galaxy by accident prior to being so developed otherwise.