Why everyone should stop folding and go SETI

[K.I.L.E.R]

We all know what folding is and we all know what SETI@home is, so I'll get straight to the point.

Give up folding and search for aliens.

Benefits of finding aliens:
We will never get sick again.
We will have warp technology. (The Vulcans might share with us)
New and improved ways of hiding WMD.
We may evolve.

These are the reasons you seriously need to stop folding. Stop dreaming with the fodling junk. Once we find aliens we will have all the help we need. We'll be spoon fed and never need to fold again.

[Humus]

Reasons SETI should be ditched:
We won't find alien. Why? Well, scanning radio data from cosmos are unlikely to ever find anything but cosmic noise. First of all, what is the likelyhood that aliens would be using radiowaves? Will even humans use radiowaves in 100 years? Once we have control over the quantum effects we can use that to communicate instead. If we can do it cheap, radiowaves may be ditched forever, and it may happend in just a century or two. If there are so much more evolved civilisations out there, chances are that they have ditched radiowaves long long time ago.
Secondly, even if they would still be using radiowaves, the distances in space would make communication unfeasible.
Thirdly, even if we could communicate in a reasonable way, there's nothing saying that we would benefit from it, not to talk about the risks involved. How do we know that they are friendly?

[K.I.L.E.R]

Oh come on, with all the aliens advanced technology they could detect radio waves from probably 9 trillion light years.

Of course they'll spoon feed us. Look how pathetic the human race is.

Maybe they'll see that we know PI up to 100 decimal places and they might take pity on us. :P :D

[DemoCoder]

Fourth, there is no reason that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, let alone simple life.

Fifth, the Fermi Paradox. Even if such life exists, it is unlikely that they exist at similar stages of development (ala Star Trek) where communcation is even reasonable. Either their civilization isn't advanced enough yet, or is so advanced that communication is irrelevent.

And if they are so advanced, why don't we see them already? It is unlikey we both arrived at the industrial revolution at the same time, more likely, they got a million or even billion year head start on us (let say, they had no dinosaur extinction and got luckly and developed intelligence on the first try)

Take the human race and extrapolate from 2003 1 million years forward. Won't we have gobbled up a big visible chunk of this galaxy by now? Won't an uncountable number of interesting emissions be coming from our galaxy? So why can't we see these other races?

No, it is very likely that we are unique in the universe. It took billions of years before the first life could develop, and in an expanding universe, size == age, therefore, the universe is super huge, but it is empty of life.


Imagine you are driving down the road playing poker. Every hour, you deal a hand trying to get a royal flush. After 100,000 hours, your first royal flush appears. You've driven 8 million miles by the time this happens, and you look back along the highway and say "woah, the road is so long and it took so long, there must be lots of royal flushes that were dealt along this road!"

But the fact is, in all of the other cars driving along the highway, no royal flushes have been dealt yet. The highway is that long simply because it has to be that big for the first royal flush to appear.

[Deepak]

We don't even know about our own planet, first lets search and explore it. :D

BTW, humas, interesting....I was thinking that even if in future we are able to travel long distances in galaxies, how will we communicate....radio waves travels ONLY :D as fast as light. May be we will find something else which can reach anywhere in the UNIVERSE in a second????

[K.I.L.E.R]

So, this universe is infinite and yet you expect no life other than ourselves in it? That's a very narrow view.

[Deepak]

DC, I disagree on this, I firmly believe there is life in this universe, and there is intelligent life somewhere, simply considering the no of galaxies, stars and even more planets.....and if there is even .0000000000000000000000000000001 % of finding life, there will still be millions of potential life forms. Why no one has contacted us?..may be we are the most developed race out there!!! Or may be they use some other form of communation which we can't tap??

[Humus]

We don't even know about our own planet, first lets search and explore it. :D

BTW, humas, interesting....I was thinking that even if in future we are able to travel long distances in galaxies, how will we communicate....radio waves travels ONLY :D as fast as light. May be we will find something else which can reach anywhere in the UNIVERSE in a second????

Well, I think it might be possible that in a very distant future that we may have something like a translocator clouds in UT. You walk into it and instantly appear at another location. But that's just another reason to not believe that there are any other advanced civilisations out there. If they would be out there, and perhaps could translocate themselves to any point in space, why aren't they doing it? Why aren't we seeing them popping up on earth? Either they don't exist, don't know we exist, or just aren't interested in going here. If they would be all that advanced I would think they would know our existence however, so it's rather they either don't exist or just aren't interested in going here. And if they aren't interested in us, then what are they chances that our tries to communicate with them would lead to any benefit?

[Humus]

So, this universe is infinite and yet you expect no life other than ourselves in it? That's a very narrow view.

The universe is most likely finite.

[Deepak]

I thought came into my mind, considering how large the distances in this universe are, we need to travel a LOT faster than light to be able to reach any other galaxy, BUT if when one travels faster than LIGHT, theoratically it goes into past (it travels back into time)....SO then how can we go faster than light and reach in PRESENT???

Can anyone answer>?

[K.I.L.E.R]

If they would be out there, and perhaps could translocate themselves to any point in space, why aren't they doing it? Why aren't we seeing them popping up on earth?

Universe = infinite.
Nothing is saying they didn't come to Earth before WE came on Earth. Or they might have come on Earth when humans were so young.

Or simply because the universe is infinite and they haven't got this far yet. ;)

The universe is most likely finite.
I wasn't taught that. :)


theoratically it goes into past (it travels back into time)....SO then how can we go faster than light and reach in PRESENT???


FALSE! If we travel faster than light then we must have a negative mass. Chalnoth has told me tachyons don't exist either.

If you travel faster than light or at the speed of light you will age slower than everything else. This is all in theory however.

[Humus]

DC, I disagree on this, I firmly believe there is life in this universe, and there is intelligent life somewhere, simply considering the no of galaxies, stars and even more planets.....and if there is even .0000000000000000000000000000001 % of finding life, there will still be millions of potential life forms. Why no one has contacted us?..may be we are the most developed race out there!!! Or may be they use some other form of communation which we can't tap??

I'm open for the thought that life may exist elsewhere, but I certainly agree with DC that we most likely are unique. If we indeed are the most advanced form of life there is, then SETI is a waste of time. We won't find anything, or if we find something it would be useless for us. If on the other hand we wouldn't be the most advanced civilisation out there, then it's extremely likely that the other civilisations would be so much more advanced that communication is useless. It's like us trying to communication with bacteria. They can't hear us, and they don't even realize we're trying to communcate with them. Again, SETI would be useless. And finally, in the extremely unlikely scenario that there is alien life that is at a very similar level of developement as humans, then there's nothing saying that we could even communicate with them in any sensible way. Would they have eyes and ears? Or would they communicate through other means? Likely so. Even if we could communicate with them, then again, would we actually benefit of such a communication? They may just not be interested in us, or they may not be friendly at all. Would you like to put the humankind at risk by communicating with life forms you have no idea if they are just alien predators or friendly?

[Deepak]

Theoratically it is possible to go faster than light, infact I remember one university did make some sort of rays go faster than light...can't remember..

[Humus]

IBUT if when one travels faster than LIGHT, theoratically it goes into past (it travels back into time)

If you base this on einsteins theories then this is a misconception. Instead of going backwards you have a hard to interpret situation. You don't get a negative number, you get negative number under a square root, which results in an imaginary number. The only sensible conclusion I can draw from that is that it's just impossible to go back in time.

[Humus]

Theoratically it is possible to go faster than light, infact I remember one university did make some sort of rays go faster than light...can't remember..

You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.

[Humus]

If they would be out there, and perhaps could translocate themselves to any point in space, why aren't they doing it? Why aren't we seeing them popping up on earth?

Universe = infinite.
Nothing is saying they didn't come to Earth before WE came on Earth. Or they might have come on Earth when humans were so young.

Or simply because the universe is infinite and they haven't got this far yet. ;)

The universe is most likely finite.
I wasn't taught that. :)

Well, then it's time you educate yourself. If the big bang theory is true, then matter does not exist outside a radius of c * t, where t is around 20 billion years or so.
Then if you go into the deeper and slightly philosophical discussion, then our three dimensional universe may indeed only be the surface of a four-dimenional sphere. So if you travel very far in one direction you will sooner or later get back to where you started.

[K.I.L.E.R]

...risk by communicating with life forms you have no idea if they are just alien predators or friendly?

I think that question is answered in Alien. :lol:


Theoratically it is possible to go faster than light, infact I remember one university did make some sort of rays go faster than light...can't remember..


http://www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=1729&pagenumber=1


There is a therory that using negetive energy you could expand space behind your space craft and contract space in front of your space craft and travel faster than light with out violating general reletivity. This method is called warp drive (evidently the scientist is a star trek fan)the result is that you travel in a bubble of space that is stationary in relation to the space craft but the bubble of space can travel at any speed with out all the infinite energy/mass probelms.


Humus:

Well, then it's time you educate yourself. If the big band theory is true, then matter does not exist outside a radius of c * t, where t is around 20 billion years or so.
Then if you go into the deeper and slightly philosophical discussion, then our three dimensional universe may indeed only be the surface of a four-dimenional sphere. So if you travel very far in one direction you will sooner or later get back to where you started.


That's a big if there Humus. :)
Scientists are not 100% sure of anything. What would happen if all the current theories of how the universe started were proved false?
What would people say if we lived in a finite universe with infinite realities built into it making the universe infinite?
Sort of like expanding the universe's depth.

[Ilfirin]

Take the human race and extrapolate from 2003 1 million years forward. Won't we have gobbled up a big visible chunk of this galaxy by now? Won't an uncountable number of interesting emissions be coming from our galaxy? So why can't we see these other races?

No, it is very likely that we are unique in the universe. It took billions of years before the first life could develop, and in an expanding universe, size == age, therefore, the universe is super huge, but it is empty of life.


You, along with a lot of the SETI people, are missing a very major point though.

First, it is physically impossible to see a very large chunk of the universe simply because it is located more than ~8-15 billion lightyears away and thus none of the light that side of the universe emits has had enough time to even reach Earth. This is one way they determine the age of the universe btw.

Second, Everything we see in the universe is several millions, to several billions of years out of date and thus even if there was extremely intelligent life on those planets, we're still "looking into the past" to way before they were created. They could have colonized virtually all the universe and we'd still not yet even see basic life forming.

To put this in perspective, many of the stars you see at night could very well have died off long before Earth even formed.

The flip side to this, though, is if we somehow detected some microscopic lifeform on some planet, that'd mean the life there would probably be several millions of years ahead of us at the same time as the detection was made (unless it was from one of the nearby solar systems, which isn't likely).

Anyway, problem with SETI is that for a distant lifeform to be intelligent enough to send out radio waves that we would receive anytime within the next million years or so they would have had to formed the most basic life almost immediately (relatively speaking) after the big bang. And there's 0 chance that that happened.

K.I.L.E.R> Re infinite universe: IIRC, out of the various different general-relativity solutions to the universe, physicists now believe that the closed solutions are the most likely and thus the universe is not only not infinite, but if you were to travel in one direction long enough, you'd end up right back where you started. But don't quote me on any of this..

[Nappe1]

remember that, WE could be the side offering high tech to them. Noone can be sure that they really technically a lot more advanced than us. Plus there's a lot things that are related to place we live (eg. lots of stuff are based on facts that can be seen most likely only here: for example, how you define time (days, weeks, years) if you can see more than 1 sun at a time? Even more difficult it gets if the supposed alien planet goes around both suns a syncronously... )


and yes... parody called "Morons From Outer Space" could be true. :)

[london-boy]

KILER, r u for real?
i don't post here a lot, but god u say a lot of stupid things... which aint a bad thing in itself, mind u... :lol:

just listen to Humus and leave science fiction to science fiction threads... otherwise, get a book, read it, then come back.

there are MANY theories about everything, and the theory of a Multiverse (a universe made of an infinite number of universes coexisting in parallel dimensions) is just that, a theory. moreover, that theory is clear about the fact that it would be nearly impossible to communicate between parallel universes. therefore the universe u live in IS finite. the fact that there MIGHT be other universes out there doesn't mean anything. they exists in other realities. and they could be so different that existance there would be impossible for us (think 2D universes, universes without Protons etc).

u really should read some books on this, personally i EAT cosmology books, i'm just hooked. they provide a good deal of information and make u understand that THEORIES are just THEORIES. like i could say men come from Mars (which i think is also an "official" theory). but thats a theory.

[Ilfirin]

Just to reiterate the central point of my first post:

While it is virtually a statistical fact that there's other life out there in the universe, it is just as, or more so, likely that all of humanity will die off and become extinct long before any communication can be made between that life (1-way or not). So it's a bit of an irrelevant question.

[edit]Which brings up another interesting point: If SETI were to ever receive a radio wave from an alien species, by the time we received that wave it is most likely that the race which sent it would already be dead.

[Natoma]

You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.

If there's one thing science has taught us through the centuries, never, ever, say can't. :wink:

Theoretically it is possible to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Not by directly accelerating the matter itself, but by warping the surrounding space, which has no mass, and accelerating that, while letting the ship ride that warped space like a surf board.

And we haven't even discussed other "FTL" travel mechanisms such as wormholes which are theoretically possible as well.

[Natoma]

Ceasing the search for life simply because the odds that life at roughly the same level of development, intelligence, and communications ability exists in the universe, within communicable distance, are slim, is a bad reason to do so. Even if we receive a signal and that life is now extinguished, the point remains that we'd have proof that intelligent life has existed elsewhere in this universe.

I'd liken it to finding dinosaur bones in the ground. Sure they have no "purpose" today, but they expand our knowledge and enrich our species, even if we can't communicate with them.

Anyways, there is life on other planets. Life, even on our own planet, has shown itself quite capable of sustaining itself in every conceivable condition. There are life forms that metabolise iron and sulphur in the deepest depths of the ocean near volcanic fissures. There are life forms that live in the coldest regions of antarctica, or the hottest regions of the sahara. Life forms that never see the sun, yet synthesize chemicals such as methane and create entire food chains based off that.

Frankly I have high hopes for the exploration of Europa. A vast ocean warmed and cooled by Jupiter's powerful magnetic field could be a veritable cornucopia of life. Even if it isn't "intelligent" by our standards, the fact that it exists would be a strong enough push to get us deeper into space imo, which is where we're going to need to be anyways in order to sustain our ever growing population.

[Ilfirin]

Anyways, there is life on other planets. Life, even on our own planet, has shown itself quite capable of sustaining itself in every conceivable condition. There are life forms that metabolise iron and sulphur in the deepest depths of the ocean near volcanic fissures. There are life forms that live in the coldest regions of antarctica, or the hottest regions of the sahara. Life forms that never see the sun, yet synthesize chemicals such as methane and create entire food chains based off that.

Yes, but none of that even remotely compares to having your entire planet destroyed, or your, along with all those nearby, solar system being destroyed when its sun dies out. Entire galaxies are destroyed all the time and more are born from the reminants. Our own sun is expected to go in a relatively short amount of time (few million years), taking with it the entire solar system. While it is a very remote possibility that we will manage to find (and, even harder, move all humanity to there) another planet able to sustain human life before we all die, it's quite unlikely. And even then, galaxies don't last forever (nor do universes).

Frankly I have high hopes for the exploration of Europa. A vast ocean warmed and cooled by Jupiter's powerful magnetic field could be a veritable cornucopia of life. Even if it isn't "intelligent" by our standards, the fact that it exists would be a strong enough push to get us deeper into space imo, which is where we're going to need to be anyways in order to sustain our ever growing population.

Just for the record, I never stated we should stop searching, but SETI isn't the way, or at least, Folding@Home is a much more valid usage of our CPU power. If we were to ever find life that was actually still alive, it would have to be pretty damn close (like, in this solar system) and thus the effort should be directed at setting up human outposts all over this solar system to allow full exploration of it.

[pcchen]

Finding ET may be important, but not more important than folding proteins IMHO. I'll give a simple reason behind this:

Finding ET is a very long term project. Even if some alien life forms are found, we still need to find a good way to communicate with them, that takes even more time. On the other hand, if we can put more effort on protein research and make some new drugs one year earlier, we may save thousands or more people's life. Finding an ET one year earlier has no apparent benefit.

Furthermore, the idea about aliens can solve every problem on earth is quite stupid. They don't know us, they don't understand our social structure. You can't solve every problem of the ant nest near your house, so does the alien. And they may be just uninterested with us. Why should they care about some strange lifeforms thousands light years away?

I still think it's important to do space exploration and finding ET, just as Natoma said. However, it shoudn't be more important than protein folding, or other human related research.

[Sticky]

KILER, r u for real?
i don't post here a lot, but god u say a lot of stupid things... which aint a bad thing in itself, mind u... :lol:

just listen to Humus and leave science fiction to science fiction threads... otherwise, get a book, read it, then come back.

there are MANY theories about everything, and the theory of a Multiverse (a universe made of an infinite number of universes coexisting in parallel dimensions) is just that, a theory. moreover, that theory is clear about the fact that it would be nearly impossible to communicate between parallel universes. therefore the universe u live in IS finite. the fact that there MIGHT be other universes out there doesn't mean anything. they exists in other realities. and they could be so different that existance there would be impossible for us (think 2D universes, universes without Protons etc).

u really should read some books on this, personally i EAT cosmology books, i'm just hooked. they provide a good deal of information and make u understand that THEORIES are just THEORIES. like i could say men come from Mars (which i think is also an "official" theory). but thats a theory.

what books? I enjoy reading about this as well. I wouldnt mind picking some thing up.

Sticky

[notAFanB]

So, this universe is infinite and yet you expect no life other than ourselves in it? That's a very narrow view.

The universe is most likely finite.

and possibly unbounded....see u on the other side 8)

Theoretically it is possible to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Not by directly accelerating the matter itself, but by warping the surrounding space, which has no mass, and accelerating that, while letting the ship ride that warped space like a surf board.


so is that faster than the Speed of light or not?


You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.


are u refering to the quantum spin effect and EPR paradox here?

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:
Theoretically it is possible to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Not by directly accelerating the matter itself, but by warping the surrounding space, which has no mass, and accelerating that, while letting the ship ride that warped space like a surf board.

IIRC general-relativity says that matter can not be accelerated to the speed of light. It does not say that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light, just not the speed of light. So accelerating matter from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light is impossible. (Maybe just semantics but..... :) )

Ilfirin wrote:
Our own sun is expected to go in a relatively short amount of time (few million years), taking with it the entire solar system.
Wrong. Our sun is at about middle life and shall last a few more billion years. I think we still have time to figure out how to get to another planet able to sustain human life in time :)

[Humus]

That's a big if there Humus. :)
Scientists are not 100% sure of anything. What would happen if all the current theories of how the universe started were proved false?
What would people say if we lived in a finite universe with infinite realities built into it making the universe infinite?
Sort of like expanding the universe's depth.

Well, like everything, chances are that everything is indeed false. There's this philosophical question about whether what we through our sense think is real may actually be nothing but the senses playing us a game. The reality may be something completely different than what our senses tells us. I think it was Platon who first came up with the idea, and the question is still valid and was kinda renewed in the Matrix movie.

In the end of it all though, the search for Aliens are like the search for God. It's more or less a new kind of religion. Humans are fundamentally spiritual, and once they lost their faith in God they need to look into the heavens for other things.

[Humus]

You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.

If there's one thing science has taught us through the centuries, never, ever, say can't. :wink:

Well, true, but for now we have ever reason to believe that we can't.

[Humus]

Ceasing the search for life simply because the odds that life at roughly the same level of development, intelligence, and communications ability exists in the universe, within communicable distance, are slim, is a bad reason to do so. Even if we receive a signal and that life is now extinguished, the point remains that we'd have proof that intelligent life has existed elsewhere in this universe.

I'd liken it to finding dinosaur bones in the ground. Sure they have no "purpose" today, but they expand our knowledge and enrich our species, even if we can't communicate with them.

Frankly, I think it's an incredible waste of resources into a project that's highly unlikely to ever give any return. There are much more useful stuff that we could spend the same resources on, for instance folding, that we could very likely benefit from in a short time frame.

[Humus]

You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.


are u refering to the quantum spin effect and EPR paradox here?

Honestly I don't know, I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but every report of the "faster than light" kind has always been that something else, such as a waveform or information, rather than real physical objects has been transferred at rates higher than the speed of light. In all cases, the actual objects or matter has had a speed below the speed of light.

[notAFanB]

Honestly I don't know, I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but every report of the "faster than light" kind has always been that something else, such as a waveform or information, rather than real physical objects has been transferred at rates higher than the speed of light. In all cases, the actual objects or matter has had a speed below the speed of light.

the reason I am asking is that bar a few quantum phenomena everthing thing else fits relitivity rather nicely. so that not even information between 'things' can occur FTL (non-simulataneous events as such).

of course I failed high school physics so........

[Ilfirin]

Ilfirin wrote:
Our own sun is expected to go in a relatively short amount of time (few million years), taking with it the entire solar system.
Wrong. Our sun is at about middle life and shall last a few more billion years. I think we still have time to figure out how to get to another planet able to sustain human life in time :)

Right, I meant to say billion (hey, only off by a factor of 1000 :p). I'd expect there to be a catastrophic event to happen to the Earth long before that though that'd whipe off most of the life on the planet, but by then I'm sure we'd have outposts on or orbiting other planets/moons in the solar system anyway (though I wonder how an outpost would survive without the constant source of food, water and oxygen being shipped to it from the Earth)

[Natoma]

Theoretically it is possible to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Not by directly accelerating the matter itself, but by warping the surrounding space, which has no mass, and accelerating that, while letting the ship ride that warped space like a surf board.


so is that faster than the Speed of light or not?

It's considered a loophole that would allow FTL travel through "conventional" means, i.e. no worm/black holes, hyperspace, etc

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:
Theoretically it is possible to accelerate matter faster than the speed of light. Not by directly accelerating the matter itself, but by warping the surrounding space, which has no mass, and accelerating that, while letting the ship ride that warped space like a surf board.

IIRC general-relativity says that matter can not be accelerated to the speed of light. It does not say that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light, just not the speed of light. So accelerating matter from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light is impossible. (Maybe just semantics but..... :) )

*cough* splitting hairs *cough* :P

That's why folding space into a bubble and accelerating that bubble would not cause any relativistic problems. Relative to the space your ship occupies, you aren't moving at all, thus you are not violating relativistic light speed limit.

Nice and neat loophole. :)

[notAFanB]

It's considered a loophole that would allow FTL travel through "conventional" means, i.e. no worm/black holes, hyperspace, etc

I know but the net velocity of the body in question is zero? did it travel FTL or not?




Nice and neat loophole.

it would be a loophole if FTL of the body in question were so.

[Natoma]

notAfanB,

That's why folding space into a bubble and accelerating that bubble would not cause any relativistic problems. Relative to the space your ship occupies, you aren't moving at all, thus you are not violating relativistic light speed limit.

That's why warping space is probably our best bet imo at moving through the universe at FTL speeds while not violating relativity.

[notAFanB]

ah right gotcha.

That's why warping space is probably our best bet imo at moving through the universe at FTL speeds while not violating relativity.


considering the levels of Mass/Energy we need to warp spacetime I dun find that paticularly comforting :(

[DemoCoder]

The fact that the universe is large and has so many stars does not mean life is plentiful or probable, especially if you mean "like us" (self replicating organic molecules) There's a whole list of prerequisites: solar system not choked in dust, enough high level elements available (meaning many supernovas had to happen in the area to give us more than helium), star like sun in the middle of it's main sequence, planet with neccessary conditions...

And we haven't even started with the probability of abiogenesis.


Also referring to the number of species on earth is irrelevent. Those all share a common ancestry, and with the exception of human beings, none of them are "intelligent", that is, smart enough to develop technology, written language, etc

[Paul]

Researchers predict there are 70 Sextillion Stars in the visible universe. ASSUMING ONLY 2 Planets per star which is a VERY VERY VERY generous estimate, there are over 140 sextillion plants in the universe.


Anyone who says that there is not intelligent life other than us in the universe is just plain narrowminded or a huge religious fanatic. It's not even an opinion basically, given the odd's against the fact are infinite basically.

[DemoCoder]

Researchers predict there are 70 Sextillion Stars in the visible universe. ASSUMING ONLY 2 Planets per star which is a VERY VERY VERY generous estimate, there are over 140 sextillion plants in the universe.


Anyone who says that there is not intelligent life other than us in the universe is just plain narrowminded or a huge religious fanatic. It's not even an opinion basically, given the odd's against the fact are infinite basically.

Ah, argument by handwave.

#1 not all stars have planets
#2 not all planets are even remotely capable of supporting life
#3 life != intelligent life
#4 ... this list goes on


The number .1010010001000010000010000001... is transcendental. It is infinite, never repeats a sequence. There are an infinite number of patterns within this number.

Yet, it does not contain "every possibility". Quite easily, you can see, '11' never occurs. Nor does 2, 3, 4,5,6,7,8,9 or any sequence with any of those patterns.


Even if there were 10^22 planets as you suggest, and even if ALL of them were earth-like in composition with similar stars, you're talking about probabilities for forming basic self replicating molecules that could range from 10^40 to 10^500.

Do you comprehend that if the chance of the first self replicating molecule forming out of a primordial soup is 1 in 10^40, and let's say we allow a reaction every millisecond, and a universe on the order of 15 billion years, the probability of life starting is still 40-(15+22)= 3 or one in one thousand over the entire universe!

We have discovered no laws that tell us that the simplist self replicating molecules will "commonly arise" if conditions are right. For all we know, it's just the probability of picking 100 atoms at random and combining them in precisely the right order and structure.


Sure, a sextillion sounds like alot, but people have real trouble reasoning about large numbers, and it is not a "certainty" that the universe is full of separately evolved life, unless you believe in a creator who screws up the probabilities by interfering with the laws of physics and seeding life throughout the universe.

[Humus]

Researchers predict there are 70 Sextillion Stars in the visible universe. ASSUMING ONLY 2 Planets per star which is a VERY VERY VERY generous estimate, there are over 140 sextillion plants in the universe.


Anyone who says that there is not intelligent life other than us in the universe is just plain narrowminded or a huge religious fanatic. It's not even an opinion basically, given the odd's against the fact are infinite basically.

Yay for generalisations!

What are the odds of life occuring then? I've read numbers such as 1 in 10^113 for even the simplest protein molecule under ideal conditions, which then are very likely to get destroyed again quickly due to radition unless it immediately fell into water or something else protecting it. For a full semi-living thing I've seen numbers such as 1 in 10^40,000.

As for two planets / star being generous, I don't think so. Looking at the closest stars except the sun it seems our solar system is indeed pretty unique. Most other stars either don't have planets at all or have one. Very few have two or more.

I'm not a religious nut, I'd rather call me agnostic, but I see the belief in aliens as just another form of religion. As long as we have no proof the guy believing in alien life is no less religious than he who believes in God.

[Silent_One]

Do you comprehend that if the chance of the first self replicating molecule forming out of a primordial soup is 1 in 10^40, and let's say we allow a reaction every millisecond, and a universe on the order of 15 billion years, the probability of life starting is still 40-(15+22)= 3 or one in one thousand over the entire universe!

DC,
Where do you come up with "we allow a reaction every millisecond"? A primordial soup would have trillions (sextillions?) of molecules with billions (trillions) of reactions, No?

[Silent_One]

Humas wrote:Looking at the closest stars except the sun it seems our solar system is indeed pretty unique. Most other stars either don't have planets at all or have one. Very few have two or more.
Actually looking at the closest stars (within 100 light years or so...)there are quite a few stars with planets. Beyond that distance we can't tell yet.

[DemoCoder]

Everyone should read the Anthropic Principal, which details exactly many of the "strange coincidences" in the laws of physics, which if modified in the slightest way, make it impossible for us to exist.

Moreover, they cover the cosmology of stars and solar systems which makes solar systems like ours a rare treasure.



You can look at the fact we exist in two ways:

1) we are very improbable, there is a supernatural power influencing the odds
2) we just got lucky

3) selection bias. There are an uncountable number of universes in existence, either in parallel, or before us. None of those had life. Ours has life. We notice we seem to be very improbable, therefore we conclude #1 or #2, because we can't see the 10^googleplex failures to create life in other universes.

Imagine you are about to be executed on a firing squad. 999,999,999 people before you are killed. There are 100 people in the firing squad, and sometimes some of their rifles jam. But when your turn comes and the guy says "fire", all 100 rifles jam. You are saved.

Afterwards, you are led to question why you in particular were saved. Was there something special about me? Did someone intervene on my behalf? Do I have karma? Luck?

Selection bias. We observe that we evolved, and perhaps the laws of nature seem tailored made for our existence, but the universe seems empty of life. -- because in universes where observers did not evolve, no one was there to ask the question, and we are unable to observe those universes or peer beyond the big bang.

[DemoCoder]

Do you comprehend that if the chance of the first self replicating molecule forming out of a primordial soup is 1 in 10^40, and let's say we allow a reaction every millisecond, and a universe on the order of 15 billion years, the probability of life starting is still 40-(15+22)= 3 or one in one thousand over the entire universe!

DC,
Where do you come up with "we allow a reaction every millisecond"? A primordial soup would have trillions (sextillions?) of molecules with billions (trillions) of reactions, No?

Sure, tack on another 9-15 exponents. I lowballed the probability to not seem controversial. If you want a real estimate, people in the abiogenesis field assume even the simplist self replicating molecules would require over a google in coin toss probability models. I've seen estimates up to 10^500 for simple RNA.

Point is, we are dealing with huge numbers, so simply appealing to the large number of stars or particles in the universe is quite irrelevent. The probabilities easily exceeed the product of the age of the universe in femtoseconds times the number of particles in the known universe.


Imagine generating random computer software, say C programs, until you got the first self replicating one that compiles and runs without crashing or terminating. Now imagine something unimaginably more unlikely.

[DemoCoder]

Humas wrote:Looking at the closest stars except the sun it seems our solar system is indeed pretty unique. Most other stars either don't have planets at all or have one. Very few have two or more.
Actually looking at the closest stars (within 100 light years or so...)there are quite a few stars with planets. Beyond that distance we can't tell yet.

Yes, but they are gas giants or orbiting the wrong kind of stars. And even if they were the right kind of stars, you need sufficient amounts of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other higher elements (besides helium or hydrogen), and these only exist if you've had a few supernovas in the areas spreading such material.

And even if you have the right kind of star, life has to start at the right time. Early or late in the stars life, and it's too inhospitable. There is a "window" in the typical Sun-like star's main sequence where the right environment can exist.

Imagine the trajedy on Earth if life didn't start for another 4 billion years. Right when the first self replicating molecule starts up, the Sun starts to incinerate the planet.


Estimates have been done on the number of main-sequence Sun-like stars in the universe combined with probability of supernovas, and those just compound the already unlikely probability of abiogenesis.

[Hyp-X]

IIRC general-relativity says that matter can not be accelerated to the speed of light. It does not say that matter cannot go faster than the speed of light, just not the speed of light.

That's what I remember as well.

So accelerating matter from a speed slower than light to a speed faster than light is impossible.

Unless you can "skip" the speed of light.
There are so many things that are proven to be non-continous that I wouldn't be surprised if there was a way for this.

[Paul]

1) The number of galaxies. Some 100 billion galaxies are visible to modern telescopes and the total number in the universe is believed to exceed this number, but we will be conservative.

that's 100,000,000,000.

2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions. Lets call it just 100 billion.

that's 100,000,000,000.

The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. And thats a conservative estimate.

3) The number of stars that have planetary systems. So far only around 50 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Current technology dictates that a star needs to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Even so most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it is not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in

10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion

4) The number of Earth like planets. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets. Only 1 in a million, and this is also being very conservative in as much that we are assuming here that only Earth like planets are suitable for the formation of life. Simple division results in:

10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Is%20there%20extraterrestrial%20life

Out of around ten million billion planets(estimate) out in the universe your saying that none have intelligent life? The odd's are overwhelming here. To say that it was nothing but basically a freak accident that we are here is just nonsense. We are probably just one of many species in the universe that was born and matured via evolution and will eventually go extinct.

[zidane1strife]

Benefits of finding aliens:
We will never get sick again.
We will have warp technology. (The Vulcans might share with us)
New and improved ways of hiding WMD.
We may evolve.

Benefits of folding:
We will never get sick again.
We will have warp technology. (The Vulcans might share with us)
New and improved ways of hiding WMD.
We may evolve.

There is one choice all civilitations must one day make... accept the future, or deny themselves existence...

No, it is very likely that we are unique in the universe. It took billions of years before the first life could develop, and in an expanding universe, size == age, therefore, the universe is super huge, but it is empty of life.
Well, the big brain is quite expensive, and highly dev. it appears not to be a frequently occuring event in nature, look at earth's history for an example... without gm, the primitive drives would eventually destroy such beings...
I liked Stephen Hawking's lecture... seeing as many of his views concur with mine... it is quite refreshing...
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/life.html(good read.)
May be we will find something else which can reach anywhere in the UNIVERSE in a second????
It's my belief that once we've learned more about the nature of reality, the laws shall be bent... and they shall break...
The universe is most likely finite.
Do you mean this configuration?
You can pass waveforms or information at rates higher than speed, but you can't pass matter faster than light.
matter is information.
(unless it was from one of the nearby solar systems, which isn't likely).
heheh, nasa... in less than 30yrs... will... show us... beholdeth TPF...
But don't quote me on any of this..
Indeed let me quote someone else instead...
And our galaxy itself is just one of billions of galaxies, in a universe that is infinite and expanding.--Stephen Hawking
I concur.

Indeed, fantasy... reality... they're just separated by... heheh " along time ago... in a galaxy far far away."... GL did not lie...

GL did not lie...

A great man once said that the greatest science is indistinguishable from magic...

[DemoCoder]

You can't transmit information faster than the speed of light, period. Compression doesn't count. The previous experiments with regard to sending actual information FTL utilized the fact that the exact character of the information was known ahead of time.


Imagine I am transmitting an MP3 file at light speed, and you hear "Dun dun dun...Oh baby baby, how was I supposed to know?" You might instantly generate the rest of Britney Spear's song. Wow, FTL transmission.

[zidane1strife]

You can't transmit information faster than the speed of light, period. Compression doesn't count. The previous experiments with regard to sending actual information FTL utilized the fact that the exact character of the information was known ahead of time.

We shall see... causality...

[Gump]

Probability of SETI 'Contact' Signal - ~1 in 10^339

That's a fun one to start with :D

Probability estimate of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance - 1 in 10^161

Probability estimate of the mininum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life - 1 in 10^119,879

Probability estimate that the Universe has a life (as we know it) supporting planet - 1 in 10^161

Probability estimate that the parameters of the Universe are life-supporting - 1 in 10^99

William Dembski's proposal as a Universal probability bound - 1 in 10^150 (10^80 particles in universe x 10^45 state transitions (Planck time) x 10^25 seconds in Universe)

Estimated number of sub-atomic particles in the entire Universe - ~1 in 10^84

and to finish:

French mathematican Emile Borel's proposal as a Universal probability bound below which chance could definitely be precluded - 1 in 10^50
:lol:

[Bigus Dickus]

Man, DC and Humus - you guys sound like a couple of creationists spouting off these abiogenesis and "simplest possible life" probabilities. You chastize someone for "handwaving" yet you two are doing the same thing. Yes... of course the odds of the "simplest possible protein" forming by chance are next to nil, but who says we need RNA or a protein to get the party started (despite what Behe would have you believe)?

All of those enormous numbers you guys are throwing around neglect one extremely important ingredient... evolution. Evolution is capable of working at a level far more basic than most people would ever imagine. For instance, a simple chemical compound that is easily absorbed into a semi-crystalline clay and has the property of enhancing either the rate of growth or uniformity of the crystalline pattern forms the basis for natural selection to begin working. The mechanisms of evolution work on a far wider variety of systems than people tend to think.

"Life" is such an ambiguous, vague, impossible to define term that for the purposes of this discussion it is all but useless. But if I must, I would accept the lowest form of replicating organized patterns as some rudimentary basis for life.

On those terms, the probability of another planet in just the observable universe (the part we are really concerned with) is almost exactly 1.0. The probability of life existing somewhere in a form that would be recognizable to us as "alive" is likely just a minute amount less than 1.0, and the probability of intelligent life having existed at some point or existing currently (whatever that means :) ) is still rather high.

The chance that we will ever discover such intelligent life is next to nothing.


Other random thoughts...

Information can't be transmitted faster than light locally. Bell's inequality/EPR paradox doesn't actually transmit any information.

Global FTL travel is certainly permitted by Relativity.

Current observations of the state of the universe suggest an open, not closed, universe. Trying to imagine a finite but open (unbounded?) universe is next to impossible, and in fact it may be a logical impossibility for such a universe to exist. Perhaps the universe is infinite in space but finite in mass, though that isn't a very "tidy" picture. Many people now think the universe actually is "conventionally" infinite.

There is also the various incarnations of the multiverse to consider, in which it is a certainty (probability 1.0) that intelligent life other than on Earth exists. In fact, if the quantum multiverse is a reality then in one of the existing universes the probability of humans communicating meaningfully with an intelligent species who also likes fast sports cars and curvacious women is 1.0.

:D

[K.I.L.E.R]

Thank you Bigus Penus. :lol:
Sorry, couldn't control myself. ;) :D

The last paragraph was basically the point I was trying to get across.

From now on, Bigus Dickus talks for me. :D

[DemoCoder]

BD, I am a life long atheist and routinely argue FOR abiogenesis. The fact that I believe life is extremely unlikely to develop elsewhere does not make me a "creationist". I already explained the selection bias inherent in our trying to judge whether our existence is a fluke or accident of chance, because we have no way of knowing how long and how many universes came and went before this one came into existence.

But your belief in probability 1.0 that other intelligent species exist borders on UFO-nut-case-ology. We simply don't have any other information, other than the fact that we don't observe life on any other planet except earth, we do not even observe the simplist self replicating molecules on mars, on asteroids, or on cometary dust. If it's so probable, why haven't we observed it yet? We also did not observe the evolution of intelligent at our level more than once.


Extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. You can throw around numbers like the number of (theoretically earth-like planets) which use probability arguments, but the fact remains, using the same arguments, we can show that simple self replicating molecules are still too rare. You would have us believe they are quite common. The burden of proof is on you.




The multiverse is irrelevent also, since we are interested in the question of whether life exists in THIS universe, not whether it exists in other possible universes. What is the probability that out of all the universes (those without life, those with exactly one intelligent species, and those with N intelligent species) we find we just happen to exist in one with multiple intelligent species?

I am aware of the "self replication started in mineral clay" scenario, as well as several other theories, but many of them have been refuted by their own proposers. The mineral clay hypothesis has been shot down several times.

The fact that I might agree that no current theory of abiogenesis "works" doesn't mean I am pro-creationist. I just think we haven't discovered a plausible theory that fits data and experiment yet.

On the other hand, those who belief in a universe teaming with life are taking a leap of faith that also isn't justified.

I remain skeptical.

[K.I.L.E.R]

Wheather you are skeptical or a believer it makes no difference as no one is 100% sure nor can anyone offer undeniable proof (something that can't be argued against) outside of theories.

Can any of you say 100% with pure confidence that there is absolutely no life other than us in the entire universe and provide undeniable evidence of this? And Vice versa.

[DemoCoder]

No, nor can I prove that there isn't I God. But I believe the burden of proof is on those making the assertions.


Anyone claiming ETs, Gods, spirits, or any other non-observable will need to supply extraordinary evidence to back it up.

With regards to the question of life on other planets, and God, although I can disprove neither, I am a skeptic until convinced otherwise.

People in this forum are just way too accepting of "common sense" mythology, be it the paranormal, or the extraordinary. I wouldn't be surprised to find that not only do a majority of people believe in ET civilizations, but believe in the even more ridiculous idea that they have already visited us.

[Fred]

To be frank, while I think God theories are a tright hard to believe, that there is intelligent life on another planet doesn't strike me as wholly implausable.

I hate anthropic arguments, they keep popping out in physics these days, and no serious scientist really trusts them deep down.

These probability numbers referenced above for Abiogenesis (sp, im drunk) make no reference to volume, or time. I suspect they are also incorrect, the amount of pathways to form life is probably much higher, even if they are not we have immense numbers of galaxies/life capable planets/ and conditions whereby such a thing *could* happen. The exact equations (drake eqn) include numbers that have error bars on the order of the actual eqn itself.

This reminds me a bit about the hierarchy problem in particle physics. We have immense numbers (eg 18 orders of magnitude decimal places) that have to cancel exactly in order for our theory to work (eg for life to actually exist). We know they do, since we are here, and see it happen. Ultimately what has to give, is not the acceptance of the fact under current theory, but rather the actual theory itself. It has to be *Wrong*!

[Simon F]

Also referring to the number of species on earth is irrelevent. Those all share a common ancestry, and with the exception of human beings, none of them are "intelligent", that is, smart enough to develop technology, written language, etc
There is an interesting commentry on this in "The Science of Discworld" which, ironically, has nothing to do with 'science' on Pratchet's "world" but with theories of our own planet.

It points out that there has been ample time for several intelligent species to have evolved but the earth has been hit by numerous mass extinction events that wiped out 90-odd percent of the life forms each time!

As for us being the only intelligent species - isn't there a good chance we killed off another, i.e. the Neanderthals ?

[Simon F]

Reasons SETI should be ditched:
We won't find alien. Why? Well, scanning radio data from cosmos are unlikely to ever find anything but cosmic noise. First of all, what is the likelyhood that aliens would be using radiowaves? Will even humans use radiowaves in 100 years?

I'd say yes... but as for aliens, what we should be doing is looking for huge chalkmarks orbiting distant stars showing where to tap into unprotected inter(stellar)net systems. :P

[DemoCoder]

But Fred, the handwaving argument that "we have immense numbers of X" is irrelevent without context. if the probability of life forming is something like 1 in 10^20, maybe things work out. If it's 10^40, it becomes rare. You just can't take any large number X and wave your hands over it to solve any scenario.

We all know what the probability is of all the air molecules in my room moving to one corner . Can I just wave my hands and say "given the number of planets in the universe, it must have happened atleast once!!"

In fact, we do not know how many pathways lead to self replicating molecules. It could be that there is an unfathomly huge state space, and only a single sequence of moves which can arrive at a universal replicator.


We have reason to hope, because as shown by research in cellular automata, atleast with respect to idealized 1D and 2D automata, there are several rulesets which exibit universality (under the principal of computation equivalence), not just a single one, and there are several initial states which can lead to self replicating structures (e.g. glider guns)

We have only one ruleset (natural laws), but it may be that more than one initial condition (planet environment) can lead to evolution of life.

But this is utter and complete speculation. As of right now, we know of no such conditions. Therefore, speculation as to the existence of life, let alone ET intelligences, is borderline science, something CSICOP would call "gray" science.

People seem to have a deep seated need for the universe to not be devoid of life, an emotional attachment to the idea. I grew up on science fiction and sci-fi as well, and always dreamed of interstellar travel, aliens, et al, but the fact that I dream of it and wish it, does not make it neccessary that it exists.

I have fundamental doubts about the ability to travel faster than light. I'm placing my bet that any future interstellar travel will simply use vast amounts of time, with extremely small probes, at high velocities, with any conscious observers, mechanical, rather than biological, to the point of software. (think ship that weigh 1kg down to 1gram)

As of now, the only way we know of travel requires vast amounts of mass and energy, and I do not expect this to change, or that we will find ways to "cheat" and somehow steal a few exa-watts of power. All known methods currently rely on negative energy and exotic matter, and the amount of such things usually exceeeds the mass-energy requirements for classical travel.

[jvd]

My feelings are basicly. Hey we are here. So if we managed to exist then someone , some where , some time existed or exists. If it was just luck i'm sure the luck held out for others. If it was a god well I'm sure he wouldn't just make one race and then go play pong for the rest of time.

[K.I.L.E.R]

DC, you still fail to give any evidence for your argument. :)

[Humus]

The point he's trying to make is that those claiming the existance of extraterrestial life exist are the ones that need to come forth with proof. Neither me or DC makes the claim that such life cannot exist, but we both are sceptical until proof is provided. We don't have a case to prove, those who claim that such life must exist need to come forth with proof.

[K.I.L.E.R]

I believe both sides need to come forth with proof to make any conclusion.

[Humus]

The point was rather that there is no ultimate conclusion to be made until we have any real data to base a conclusion on.

[K.I.L.E.R]

The point was rather that there is no ultimate conclusion to be made until we have any real data to base a conclusion on.

Finally you understand one of the points I was making since page 2. :)
All we have are shaky theories.

I was also suggesting that people leave an open mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if I met a female version of myself on planet Vulcan. :lol:

[Deepak]

DC, the no of potential planets in the unverse is so GREAT that UNLESS the chaces are ZERO, it is VERY likely that there is life, there is intelligent life somewhere....

[london-boy]

EXACTLY. if we managed to survive so far, then the chances of developing life, intelligent life, are > 0
therefore it is likely that somewhere and sometime in the universe, life has existed or is existing or will exist.

the chances that a planet similar to earth had pretty much the history of our one are not 0, therefore there is a chance a planet very similar to ours has existed or exists now, or will exist in the future.

will we ever communicate, or even see it? rather unlikely.

at the end it is like looking for God. this planet would be so far away it would probably be easier for us to "prove" that there is some kind of god than to communicate with the people inhabiting the planet....

to the guy asking me what books he can find, i'll check the titles i have then get back to u. the specific book i was referring to is extremely interesting, rather easy on the brain (it does go a bit technical sometimes though), and has 9 very modern theories on the way we look at the universe and reality, touching the topics of black holes, time travel, possibility of extraterrestrial life, quantum multiverse and others, explained in detail. shame i can't remember the name of the book... :D

[Silent_One]

Fred wrote: We have immense numbers (eg 18 orders of magnitude decimal places) that have to cancel exactly in order for our theory to work (eg for life to actually exist). We know they do, since we are here, and see it happen. Ultimately what has to give, is not the acceptance of the fact under current theory, but rather the actual theory itself. It has to be *Wrong*!

I too find it interesting that given that the probability of, say, "the Universe has a life (as we know it) supporting planet - 1 in 10^161" or "Probability estimate of the mininum set of the required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life - 1 in 10^119,879", are so extreme such that for all intents and purpose life should not exist....and yet...here we are. Indeed, the fact that we are here seems to refute the equations against life and support the idea that life elsewhere might exist.

[zidane1strife]

The point he's trying to make is that those claiming the existance of extraterrestial life exist are the ones that need to come forth with proof. Neither me or DC makes the claim that such life cannot exist, but we both are sceptical until proof is provided. We don't have a case to prove, those who claim that such life must exist need to come forth with proof.

Proof?!? We shall give ye proof, the "Terrestrial Planet Finder", and the "Planet Imager"... Life Finder... their power, is likely to be sufficient... so it is only decades that stand before us... and like all barriers they shall fall in due time...

A goal of Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) is to search for signs of the large-scale effects that life would have on a planet's chemistry. By analyzing the colors of infrared radiation detected by TPF, astronomers can search for atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide, water vapor, and ozone. Together with the temperature and radius of the detected planets, this information will allow astronomers to determine which planets are habitable, or even whether they may be inhabited by rudimentary forms of life.

The findings of Terrestrial Planet Finder would guide a possible subsequent mission called Life Finder. Like its predecessor, Life Finder would consist of an array of telescopes flying in formation. The telescopes would combine infrared light to produce high-resolution spectra of the atmospheres of distant planets.

Scientists would use this information to search more closely for markers of biological activity, such as seasonal variations in the levels of methane and other gases, changes in atmospheric chemistry and spectral variations in the dominant biomass.

On another note... while perusing the web...

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope precisely measured the mass of the oldest known planet in our Milky Way galaxy. At an estimated age of 13 billion years, the planet is more than twice as old as Earth’s 4.5 billion years.

How is that possible, the latest data shows the universe at around 13.7Billion years of age.

The new Hubble findings close a decade of speculation and debate as to the true nature of this ancient world, which takes a century to complete each orbit. The planet is 2.5 times the mass of Jupiter. Its very existence provides tantalizing evidence that the first planets were formed rapidly, within a billion years of the Big Bang, leading astronomers to conclude that planets may be very abundant in the universe....

...it is unlikely that any civilization witnessed and recorded the dramatic history of this planet, which began at nearly the beginning of time itself.


Strange... this thing is in our own galaxy!!!

[pascal]

Reasons SETI should be ditched:
We won't find alien. Why? Well, scanning radio data from cosmos are unlikely to ever find anything but cosmic noise. First of all, what is the likelyhood that aliens would be using radiowaves? Will even humans use radiowaves in 100 years?

I'd say yes... but as for aliens, what we should be doing is looking for huge chalkmarks orbiting distant stars showing where to tap into unprotected inter(stellar)net systems. :PDo they use TCP/IP ? http://www.abxzone.com/forums/images/smilies/Looking_anim.gif

My guess life is rare and sparselly distributed in space and time.

[Natoma]

Also referring to the number of species on earth is irrelevent. Those all share a common ancestry, and with the exception of human beings, none of them are "intelligent", that is, smart enough to develop technology, written language, etc

That's today Democoder. You have absolutely no idea if intelligent life has evolved on this planet in the past. Look at us. We have evolved our level of intelligence in a geologic blip, i.e. roughly 100,000 years.

You don't think it's possible that other species could have arisen with our level of technology, if not higher (think how much further we'd be today if we didn't have the "dark ages" or the bubonic plague in the 13th century which knocked out 1/3 of Europe population, or the centuries that went by where the church didn't allow anyone to learn to read) during the 2 billion year history that life has existed on this planet?

If we had the technology to up and leave this world today, or if we obliterated ourselves in a nuclear war, in a few million or so years, everything as we know it would be gone and the surface completely transformed. You wouldn't even know we were here.

You make ridiculous assumptions that simply defy logic considering what we've seen in not only our species, but life on this planet in general in the past few billion years. Stop it! :lol:

[Natoma]

Yes, but they are gas giants or orbiting the wrong kind of stars. And even if they were the right kind of stars, you need sufficient amounts of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, and other higher elements (besides helium or hydrogen), and these only exist if you've had a few supernovas in the areas spreading such material.

You're assuming that life has to be carbon based and life in a biosphere like our own. Life has shown itself capable of rising from anything. It could be silicon based for all we know.

And even if you have the right kind of star, life has to start at the right time. Early or late in the stars life, and it's too inhospitable. There is a "window" in the typical Sun-like star's main sequence where the right environment can exist.

Indeed. However, considering life as we know it didn't form on this planet until 2 Billion years ago, roughly 2 Billion years after the earth formed and 1 Billion years after the sun first lit, I'd say that's a pretty huge window of opportunity would you not?

Estimates have been done on the number of main-sequence Sun-like stars in the universe combined with probability of supernovas, and those just compound the already unlikely probability of abiogenesis.

And even though the probability is low, with the vast number of planets we suspect is out there, that leaves thousands, if not millions, of possible life-bearing candidates.

Frankly you're just a pessimist. :P

[Humus]

DC, the no of potential planets in the unverse is so GREAT that UNLESS the chaces are ZERO, it is VERY likely that there is life, there is intelligent life somewhere....

I suggest you reread DC's posts and come back once you have understood them. The "numbers are sooooo greeeat so it gotta weigh up everything but zero" kind of reasoning is simply just false. 10^22 doesn't weigh up more than 1/10^22. Plain simple math. If we're talking about probabilities that are close to infinitismal and multiply it with something close to infinity there's nothing saying that it gotta even out. 10^100 tries on a probability of 1 in 10^103 likely won't succeed.

[Humus]

Proof?!? We shall give ye proof, the "Terrestrial Planet Finder", and the "Planet Imager"... Life Finder... their power, is likely to be sufficient... so it is only decades that stand before us... and like all barriers they shall fall in due time...

Sure. Come back when the proof is presented. Until then ...

[Bigus Dickus]

DC, I didn't say you were a creationist, but rather that you sounded like one. Semantic difference maybe, but one would be meant as an insult and the other is not... and I didn't intend it as an insult. In return though, I see you've lumped me in with all the alien abducted God fearing tin foil hat wearing nut jobs. Thanks! :D

You make a good point... we have little in the way of data on how unlikely the formation of life is given the proper environment. That there are other Earth-like planetary environments is hardly debatable. Whether the existance of life on them is.

You take a lack of data and assume that the probability of life forming is exceedingly low... with a complete lack of data supporting that assumption. I and others assume the probability is rather high, again with a complete lack of data supporting our assumption.

Sure... if we are positing that the existence of life is high the burden of proof should be on us to find it. I believe advances in astronomy will find those telltale singns if they do in fact exist within my lifetime. But for now, there is no means available to gather that proof. We are both speculating in a vaccuum of information.

What we do know is that the number of habitable planets in the universe is very likely extremely high. What we do not know is the likelihood of life forming in such an environment. You use numbers like 10^40, but those have no real meaning. They are absolute shots in the dark with no factual basis.

So what it comes down to is akin to betting on a sporting event. You like one team, and I like the other, but in on way am I claiming it's an absolute certainty that one team will win.

[zidane1strife]

Sure. Come back when the proof is presented. Until then ...


Come back? Ye shall be a fellow witness to this discovery...
The clock is ticking...

[Fred]

DCs argument is fundamentally more sound, since it takes current estimates on the Drake eqn. I would say a plurality of scientists agree with him.

If you had asked me two years ago about the same thing, I would have echoed his sentiments.

However, since I currently work in Astrophysics, I have been exposed to a bunch of anthropic theories. Frankly, I hate them and so do a lot of other people. The current trend is to get rid of them with theories with actual mechanisms to get rid of finetuning and the like.

The best bet in this case is to say, I don't know. The parameters are poorly understood, including abiogenesis. However, as time goes on, the direction of error seems to increase the probability of life, not the other way around.

Consider that maybe 8 years ago, hardly any scientist would accept the likelihood of Mars having any life whatsoever, nevermind actual planets being observed. Now it seems more like intelligent life is the buzzword.

Either way, it is surely grey science, way too much faith and not enough hard numbers.... Yet!

[Bigus Dickus]

The best bet in this case is to say, I don't know. The parameters are poorly understood, including abiogenesis. However, as time goes on, the direction of error seems to increase the probability of life, not the other way around.

This rather closely echoes my viewpoint. Though, in a thread like this where everything is speculation and people are "taking sides" with nothing to lose (other than being wrong), I'll choose "team life."

I wouldn't put much money on it, but that's the side I see as more likely being correct. I understand DC's position, which is essentially 'until you show me proof of ET life, I'll remain skeptical that it exists.' This is the stance I typically take, but in an area like this where everything is still essentially a guess based on unknowns, I don't feel like a "nutjob" going out on a limb and taking the non-skeptical viewpoint.

[DemoCoder]

My position is a little more nuanced than that. Out of all the possible arrangements, of say, 300 atoms, how many represent self replicating molecules. Next, out of the configurations of self replicating molecules, how many initial condition arrangements (under time evolution) can lead to these configurations?

If you can prove "many", then perhaps spontaneous emergence of self replication is inevitable given reasonable time and conditions.

If only very few, then indeed, the odds are in fact astronomical.

Let us keep in mind that even in simple cellular automata, such as Conway's life, 20 years of simulations have still not been able to produce a spontaneous generation of a glider gun. (and we are talking about TRILLIONS of years of simulated evolution) The holy grail of the artificial life movement is to spontaneously generate self replicators, and no one has achieved it yet that I'm aware.

All of this tends me to believe that self replication is an uncommon configuration to end up in, and not inevitable. Research in automata has shown that even incredibly simple systems (much similar than physics) are sufficient to be universal, and such systems can support self replicators (designed by humans) that are quite short sequences.

So if universality is so common, and self replicators short, why can't they get random initial conditions to evolve into self replicators?


All I'm saying is, it's a hard problem, and simply sweeping stuff under the rug with a hand wave by appealing to the size of time and space doesn't eliminate the fundamental questions that research into molecular dynamics and cellular automata pose about the nature of evolving self replicating structures.

[Sabastian]

heh, I thought that this was one of Kilers famous "joke" threads.

[K.I.L.E.R]

heh, I thought that this was one of Kilers famous "joke" threads.

That was the plan. ;) :lol:

Plans change. :P

[zidane1strife]

If you can prove "many", then perhaps spontaneous emergence of self replication is inevitable given reasonable time and conditions.


all shall be... unveiled... in due time...

Let us wait and see...

[Dave Baumann]

Heh - I just noticed this in my referrals list:

http://www.christiancoders.com/cgi-bin/ubb-cgi/postdisplay.cgi?forum=Forum2&topic=000291

[Ilfirin]

"Christian Coders"? Most coders I know think they are God. ;)

(Heck, my name takes after this - Ilfirin is Elvish for Immortal (the nick I had since the early BBS days, but ended up getting too popular))

[CosmoKramer]

What a disturbing site/thread (the ccn one). :shock:

I'd like to ask DemoCoder, aren't you really an agnostic rather than an atheist?

[DemoCoder]

Logically I have to be an agnostic. I certainly cannot rule out Einstein's deist God (God creates laws of physics, big bang, then is out of the picture. no afterlife, no supernatural interference. This is God as programmer/engineer of the universe)

To me, religion is just irrelevent. I am not concerned about the afterlife or Gods. I wanna concentrate on this life.

Frankly, if there was a designation it would be "I just don't carist"

[CosmoKramer]

That's what I thought. I agree btw.