Posted on 01/14/2005 2:19:11 PM PST by Las Vegas Dave
Decades ago, it was physicist Enrico Fermi who pondered the issue of extraterrestrial civilizations with fellow theorists over lunch, generating the famous quip: "Where are they?" That question later became central to debates about the cosmological census count of other star folk and possible extraterrestrial (ET) visitors from afar.
Fermi’s brooding on the topic was later labeled "Fermi’s paradox". It is a well-traveled tale from the 1950’s when the scientist broached the subject in discussions with colleagues in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Thoughts regarding the probability of earthlike planets, the rise of highly advanced civilizations "out there", and interstellar travel -- these remain fodder for trying to respond to Fermi’s paradox even today.
Now a team of American scientists note that recent astrophysical discoveries suggest that we should find ourselves in the midst of one or more extraterrestrial civilizations. Moreover, they argue it is a mistake to reject all UFO reports since some evidence for the theoretically-predicted extraterrestrial visitors might just be found there.
The researchers make their proposal in the January/February 2005 issue of the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society (JBIS).
Curious situation
Pick up any good science magazine and you’re sure to see the latest in head-scratching ideas about superstring theory, wormholes, or the stretching of spacetime itself. Meanwhile, extrasolar planetary detection is on the verge of becoming mundane.
"We are in the curious situation today that our best modern physics and astrophysics theories predict that we should be experiencing extraterrestrial visitation, yet any possible evidence of such lurking in the UFO phenomenon is scoffed at within our scientific community," contends astrophysicist Bernard Haisch.
Haisch along with physicists James Deardorff, Bruce Maccabee and Harold Puthoff make their case in the JBIS article: "Inflation-Theory Implications for Extraterrestrial Visitation".
The scientists point to two key discoveries made by Australian astronomers and reported last year that there is a "galactic habitable zone" in our Milky Way Galaxy. And more importantly that Earth’s own star, the Sun, is relatively young in comparison to the average star in this zone -- by as much as a billion years.
Therefore, the researchers explain in their JBIS article that an average alien civilization would be far more advanced and have long since discovered Earth. Additionally, other research work on the supposition underlying the Big Bang -- known as the theory of inflation -- shores up the prospect, they advise, that our world is immersed in a much larger extraterrestrial civilization.
Point-to-point distances
Given billion-year advanced physics, might not buzzing around the galaxy be possible?
Even today superstring theory hypothesizes other dimensions... which could be habitable Universes adjacent to our own, the researchers speculate. It might even be possible to get around the speed of light limit by moving in and out of these dimensions.
"What we have done is somewhat of a breakthrough," Haisch told SPACE.com. "We have pulled together various recent discoveries and theoretical issues that collectively point to the strong probability that we should be in the midst of one or more huge extraterrestrial civilizations," he said.
Haisch said that superstring dimensions and wormhole and spacetime stretching possibilities address the "can't get here from there" objection often argued in view of the interstellar, point-to-point distances involved. Also, diffusion models predict that even a single civilization could spread across the Galaxy in a tiny fraction of the age of the Galaxy - even at sub-light speeds, he said.
ET signature in the data
Can the scientific community bring itself to consider any evidence coming from mysterious sightings of strange things by the public?
In large measure, the scientific community seemingly has eyed ET visitation as far from being serious stuff to cogitate over. Why so?
"The dismissal has several causes, all reinforcing each other," Haisch responded. "Most of the observations are probably misinterpretations, delusions and hoaxes. I have seen people get confused by Venus or even Sirius when it is flashing colors low in the sky under the right conditions. Having been turned off by this, most scientists never bother to look any further, and so are simply blissfully ignorant that there may be more to it," he said.
Deardorff, the lead author of the JBIS article, points out in a press statement: "It would take some humility for the scientific community to suspend its judgment and take at least some of the high quality reports seriously enough to investigate…but I hope we can bring ourselves to do that."
According to Haisch, there is a motivation not just for scientific tolerance of the UFO issue, but a strong scientific prediction that there ought to be some genuine ET signature in the data.
"This potentially changes the relationship of the UFO phenomenon to science in a significant way. It takes away the ‘not invented here’ prejudice, pointing out that a ‘yes’ to ET visitation is exactly what side our current physics and astrophysics theories would come down on as the most likely situation," Haisch concluded.
There is a logical fallacy in there, I forget the Latin name. There was no commercial alternating current electricity in New York City for quite a while until some engineers built a project. Just because something doesn't exist anywhere doesn't mean it is therefore necessarily impossible.
I guess you missed the thread on FR about the successful experiment werein precisely that appears to have happened. I don't have the link. Not something I archive.
Supposedly there are 3-4 DIFFERENT ways that 'get around' that supposed limit. Supposedly some ET's even laugh at the idea that that ever was a very serious limit.
One suggestion is via time/space being warped technologically like a bowling ball would warp a big rubber sheet.
A 2nd is that other dimensions allow short-cuts between far distant points in this time/space dimension.
I don't recall the other options.
Ahhhhh,
I didn't realize that you possessed all possible knowledge, past, present and future--from all corners of existence from which to make such a lofty pronouncement.
It just may be conceivable to some--who have hidden tiny bits of knowledge from your omnicience--that reflecting light and traveling faster than light
in SOME realities, just don't have anything to do with one another.
LOL.
No fallacy at all. You are talking about a very localized case: AC current on Earth. The universe is big, and anything that could be happening, probably is. If one observed current flows in celestial objects, you would see every variation of what is possible.
What about tachyons?
first hit on Google: tachyons "faster than light"
www.sciam.com/askexpert_question. cfm?articleID=000657D8-67D9-1C71-9EB7809EC588F2D7
Editor's note: imaginary mass is a bizarre theoretical concept that comes from taking the square root of a negative number; in this case, it roughly means that a particle's mass is only physically meaningful at speeds greater than light.]
"The name 'tachyon' (from the Greek 'tachys,' meaning swift) was coined by the late Gerald Feinberg of Columbia University. Tachyons have never been found in experiments as real particles traveling through the vacuum, but we predict theoretically that tachyon-like objects exist as faster-than-light 'quasiparticles' moving through laser-like media. (That is, they exist as particle-like excitations, similar to other quasiparticles called phonons and polaritons that are found in solids. 'Laser-like media' is a technical term referring to those media that have inverted atomic populations, the conditions prevailing inside a laser.)
"We are beginning an experiment at Berkeley to detect tachyon-like quasiparticles. There are strong scientific reasons to believe that such quasiparticles really exist, because Maxwell's equations, when coupled to inverted atomic media, lead inexorably to tachyon-like solutions.
"Quantum optical effects can produce a different kind of 'faster than light' effect (see "Faster than light?" by R. Y. Chiao, P. G. Kwiat, and A. M. Steinberg in Scientific American, August 1993). There are actually two different kinds of 'faster-than-light' effects that we have found in quantum optics experiments. (The tachyon-like quasiparticle in inverted media described above is yet a third kind of faster-than-light effect.)
"First, we have discovered that photons which tunnel through a quantum barrier can apparently travel faster than light (see "Measurement of the Single-Photon Tunneling Time" by A. M. Steinberg, P. G. Kwiat, and R. Y. Chiao, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 71, page 708; 1993). Because of the uncertainty principle, the photon has a small but very real chance of appearing suddenly on the far side of the barrier, through a quantum effect (the 'tunnel effect') which would seem impossible according to classical physics. The tunnel effect is so fast that it seems to occur faster than light.
"Second, we have found an effect related to the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen phenomenon, in which two distantly separated photons can apparently influence one anothers' behaviors at two distantly separated detectors (see "High-Visibility Interference in a Bell-Inequality Experiment for Energy and Time," by P. G. Kwiat, A. M. Steinberg, and R. Y. Chiao, Physical Review A, Vol. 47, page R2472; 1993). This effect was first predicted theoretically by Prof. J. D. Franson of Johns Hopkins University. We have found experimentally that twin photons emitted from a common source (a down-conversion crystal) behave in a correlated fashion when they arrive at two distant interferometers. This phenomenon can be described as a 'faster-than-light influence' of one photon upon its twin. Because of the intrinsic randomness of quantum phenomena, however, one cannot control whether a given photon tunnels or not, nor can one control whether a given photon is transmitted or not at the final beam splitter. Hence it is impossible to send true signals in faster-than-light communications.
"I refer interested readers to our paper 'Tachyonlike Excitations in Inverted Two-Level Media' by R. Y. Chiao, A. E. Kozhekin, and G. Kurizki, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 77, page 1254; 1996, and references therein.
Answer posted on October 21, 1999
The little misses just loves it when you try to talk that thar scientific and intellectual stuff.
[spit]
[boing]
[splat]
Nary a Renmenbi fen.
Yes, but (and, as Pee Wee Herman said: "Everybody has a big 'but.' Let's talk about YOUR big 'but.'"):
None of these cases allow information transmision faster than light. So it is not meaningful to moving information, much less aliens in their Cosmic Suburban, from place to place. I'd like to see an FTL Internet backbone before we theorize how aliens could move massive objects FTL.
I am quite intrigued by UFOs. I think it is even plausible that spaceraft that use gravity in some interesting way are possible. But I see nothing in the entire universe that moves information faster than light. It is quite possible that "ET" had to come from next door, because the far side of the galaxy is just too damn far for anyone to get here before we get zotted by an asteroid.
I don't think so. The presumption must be that any aliens capable of interstellar travel would be intelligent.
Where is the UFO data and what is it?
None of these cases allow information transmision faster than light.
***They "found experimentally that twin photons emitted from a common source behave in a correlated fashion when they arrive at two distant interferometers. This phenomenon can be described as a 'faster-than-light influence' of one photon upon its twin." That's precisely what IS moving faster than light, the information.
So it is not meaningful to moving information, much less aliens in their Cosmic Suburban, from place to place. I'd like to see an FTL Internet backbone before we theorize how aliens could move massive objects FTL.
***Our current internet backbone only moves information and not actual physicality (I'm not there with you, but my information is). I would like to see such a backbone as well, but I doubt it exists.
I seem to be stepping into a giant family argument. Have any other freepers been involved with the debates between MJ SETI and myself on the Art Bell Fan email list regarding "Art's Parts"? If so, can you forward me the file? I would like to review the material.
Insert Illegal Alien comment here.
I always wondered that, suppose the "advanced" civilization types were really just dumb ba$tards who used chemical propulsion to reach earth once their planet was in the asteroid belt. Check the Bible for all those "fiery chariots" and "thundered like a torrent" clues. Those old geezers saw SOMETHING.
Fun to take the opposite position of the "They HAVE to be FAR advanced" theory.
Nope, not information. "Spooky action at a distance" is as old as Einstein, but it didn't chuck the information-theory aspect of physics into the rubbish then, and it doesn't now. The problem is you can't put any information into that system, or get any out. Yes, two random things happen simultaneously at a distance. Interesting, but it won't get you there FTL.
I personally have seen no evidence that UFOs are alien spacecraft. I think most (if not all) are either manmade objects or misinterpreted/not understood natural phenomena.
You are quite wrong about this.
They were able to send one bit of information. That is sending information FTL. If you had hundreds of millions of these interferometers set up, you could send hundreds of millions of bits. It would be outrageously expensive, but so were computers a few decades ago.
Is there any evidence of some kind of alien FTL backplane? No, not really. Is there any evidence of the next step of transporting physical stuff? No, not at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.