Inauguration Day for Alien Signal-Hunting Telescope

Space.com ^ | 11 October 2007 | Seth Shostak

[RightWhale]

As somebody mentioned above, it’s their money and their time this time. It was Gov’t funded for a while and deserved heaps of criticism then.

[DungeonMaster]

I personally think that the odds of these guys finding anything are miniscule, because the basic SETI assumptions are trash. For example they assume that alien civilizations will be deliberately sending a very high power signal to us. Why would they? We're not sending anything to them.

Being an ex sci-fi nut and a ex Army satcom tech I agree with you. The power that it would take to send a signal that we could here would be hugh. CArl Sagan envisioned a series of prime numbers being the simplest "we are here" signal. This whole thing is 100 percent religious because of all the evolutionary implications life on other planets would have.

[Kevmo]

Good point. It’s a waste of time, money and resources, not just time. Bad science.

It was Gov’t funded for a while and deserved heaps of criticism then.
***That’s my understanding as well. They deserved lots of criticism then, and less criticism now. Spending money on a pseudoscientific pursuit opens up the retort that they should have nothing to say about other pursuits that are considered pseudoscientific, like creationism. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[RightWhale]

Bill of Rights—Free Speech

Well, they can display their ignorance all they want and if there isn’t room for their ill-advised opinions on FR they can go find another stump to stand on.

[Kevmo]

Looks like we agree on that item. Thanks for the interesting correspondence.

[LibWhacker]

The well accepted mathematical definition of “possible” is 1 in 10^50.

Hmm... Never heard that one before, Kev! Could it be that you heard it wrong and that's the practical definition of what is possible (instead of the mathematical definition)?

Strictly speaking, even something with a probability of occurring as low as 1/10^99 is still possible.

[Kevmo]

I posted that on a crevo thread and it was reinforced by Alamo Girl, one of my favorite Freepers.

Google for “Mathematical Definition of Impossible”
8 hits, all agree with 10^50. No Wikipedia entry.

[RightWhale]

It’s a statistical definition. Statistics is (are?) sometimes confused with mathematics.

[BlazingArizona]

CArl Sagan envisioned a series of prime numbers being the simplest "we are here" signal. This whole thing is 100 percent religious because of all the evolutionary implications life on other planets would have.

Carl Sagan was a liberal idealist who believed that the universe was populated with benignly pacifist NPR listeners. SETI research have long since abandoned the idea that anyone would gratuitously yell "I am here!" to a universe of potential hazards. Instead, Allen and his crew are looking for accidental radio leakage. Capturing just one second of some alien equivalent of "I Love Lucy" floating around in the heavens would prove their point.

[LibWhacker]

Definitely not a statistical definition. It comes up in discussions about what is practically possible and impossible, but I don't know of any statisticians who would dare to say that an event with a probability of less than 1/10⁵⁰ was mathematically or statistically impossible.

'Course, as a practical matter, something that unlikely just ain't gonna happen.

Statistics is (are?) sometimes confused with mathematics.

How's that old line go?... Applied mathematicians say statistics isn't mathematics and pure mathematicians say applied mathematics isn't mathematics. Something like that. But the fact is, most (American) university statistics programs are subsumed in their math departments. Or at least were when I was in school. That is, your degree is in mathematics. Your specialty is statistics (or probability).

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your kind words of encouragement, dear Kevmo!

Because every mathematical statement is built on axioms, the axioms themselves result in theoretical impossibilities which are not impossible at all with different axioms.

For instance, in Euclidean Geometry – parallel lines do not intersect. Nor does infinity exist.

But in non-Euclidean Geometry (which better represents space/time) – parallel lines do intersect at the “Point at Infinity” – and the angles of a triangle add up to more than 180 degrees, etc. Moreover, space/time is created as the universe expands.

As a side note, I have just concluded a very long and contentious debate on a Religion Forum thread over the above point. Some of my correspondents absolutely refuse to accept non-Euclidean geometry much less that space/time is not Euclidean.

That is part of what betty boop and I call "the observer problem."

Statistics, complex systems theory and probability are even more so “in the eye of the beholder.”

For example, take time complexity or algorithmic complexity of a discrete function – O(n) where n is the size of the input to a function. An instance that is n bits long which can be solved in n² steps has a time complexity of O(n²). It is a statement of linear complexity, like mowing a lawn — the bigger the lawn, the longer it takes to mow it. An example of a logarithmic form would be looking for a number in the phone book. You’d open it in the middle, and then open one side or the other and so forth to narrow the search to the name of the party you want to call.

Compare that to combinatorics which considers each possibility in a given set as equi-probable – like tossing a coin. For example:

Rationality v Randomness

With this background, let's look at the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At the Cambrian explosion of animal life, 530 million years ago, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) appeared suddenly in the fossil record. Only 30 to 34 survived. The rest perished. Since then no new phyla have evolved. It is no wonder that Scientific American asked whether the mechanism of evolution has changed in a way that prohibits all other body phyla. It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed. It is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change, change to fit the data presented by the fossil record. To use the word of Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, it appears that the flow of life is "channeled" along these 34 basic directions.

Let's look at this channeling and decide whether or not it can be the result of random processes.

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies we have, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 proteins. It is estimated that there are some 30 million species of animal life on Earth. If the genomes of all animals produced 50,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the species (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 million x 50,000) 1.5 trillion (1.5 x10 to power of 12) proteins in all life. (The actual number is vastly lower). Now let's consider the likelihood of these viable combinations of proteins forming by chance, recalling that, as the events following the Cambrian explosion taught us, not all combinations of proteins are viable.

Proteins are coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 300 amino acids. There are 20 commonly occurring amino acids in life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein is 20 to the power of 300 (that is 20 multiplied by itself 300 times) or in the more usual ten-based system of numbers, 10 to the power of 390 ( Ten multipled by itself 390 times or more simply said a one with 390 zeroes after it!!!!!) . Nature has the option of choosing among the possible 10 to the power of 390 proteins, the the 1.5 x (10 to power of 12) proteins of which all viable life is composed. Can this have happened by random mutations of the genome? Not if our understanding of statistics is correct. It would be as if nature reached into a grab bag containing a billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion proteins and pulled out the one that worked and then repeated this trick a million million times.

BTW, in reference to the above article - as with the axioms in the geometry example - one cannot say something is random in the system if he doesn't know what the system "is." And we do not know - and cannot know - how many spatial and temporal dimensions exist, so the term random should not apply at all to evolution theory. But people tend to say "random" when they really mean "unpredictable."

Bayesian probability, on the other hand, looks at every possibility in the set, but does not consider them to be equi-probable. Of course, those determinations are highly subjective. What’s the chance of the Dallas Cowboys playing in the next Super Bowl?

For a comparison of Combinatorics to Bayesian, here’s a link to betty boop’s wonderful essay!

The bottom line is that “impossibility” – whether in geometry or probability or philosophy or whatever – depends on the “system” and the observer.

The probability of 1 in 10⁵⁰ would be impossible to most any rational person. But if it were a sweepstakes and that many tickets were sold, that there would be a winner is certain - though for all intents and purposes, the chance of your winning with that ticket is virtually impossible.

[Kevmo]

God has truly blessed you with an amazing mind. Please forgive me that I did not read through your entire post, I’m in ski/surf mode after working and it just does not settle. I’ll need to read it later.

The probability of 1 in 1^50 would be impossible to most any rational person. But if it were a sweepstakes and that many tickets were sold, that there would be a winner is certain - though for all intents and purposes, the chance of your winning with that ticket is virtually impossible.
***So, how about if we break it down. If I buy 10 lottery tickets, each with a 1 in 1M chance of winning(10^-6), that’s 10^-60 chance of winning ALL 10 lotteries that week, right? Virtually impossible. So, a chance as high as 10^120 would be like winning ALL 10 lotteries 2 weeks in a row?

[Alamo-Girl]

I'm heading off to bed now, but to put that in perspective - the number of particles in the universe is 10⁸⁰.

Imagine looking at the cosmos and perchance happening to pick just exactly the one "right" particle.

I'd call that impossible.

The sweepstakes example is in the same league.

[Kevmo]

Thanks, AG.

There’s another thread with this type of discussion going on... I posted a link to the subquantum kinetics stuff that looks so intriguing, but no bites.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1910111/posts?page=93#93

Creation Cosmologies Solve Spacecraft Mystery
ICR ^ | October 1, 2007 | Dr. Russell Humphreys

Posted on 10/11/2007 8:52:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

[RightWhale]

• in non-Euclidean Geometry (which better represents space/time) – parallel lines do intersect at the “Point at Infinity”

  Not true. Parallel lines do not intersect however much the angles and distances are massaged, not in elliptical, not in hyperbolic geometry. There is no point at infinity. Also, time is not a spatial dimension and is nothing like a spatial dimension except in defective cosmologies.

[Alamo-Girl]

Sigh – here we go again.

Here is the definition of Point at Infinity (the intersection of two parallel lines.) It is not a new theory.

Or perhaps this explanation will help:

University of Toronto

Do Parallel Lines Meet At Infinity?

Asked by a student at St-Joseph Secondary School on October 5, 1997:

Could you help me prove that parallel lines meet at infinity or that infinity begins where parallel lines meet.

I am curious. Could this ever happen?

The answer to the question depends on exactly what kind of geometry you are dealing with and what "points" and "lines" mean.

If you are talking about ordinary lines and ordinary geometry, then parallel lines do not meet. For example, the line x=1 and the line x=2 do not meet at any point, since the x coordinate of a point cannot be both 1 and 2 at the same time.

In this context, there is no such thing as "infinity" and parallel lines do not meet.

However, you can construct other forms of geometry, so-called non-Euclidean geometries. For example, you can take the usual points of the plane and attach to them an additional point called "infinity" and consider all lines to also include this additional point. In this context, there is a single "infinity" location where all lines meet. In a geometry like this, all lines intersect at infinity, in addition to any finite point where they might happen to meet.

Or, you could attach not just one additional point, but a whole collection of additional points, one for each direction. Then you can consider two parallel lines to meet at the extra point corresponding to their common direction, whereas two non-parellel lines do not intersect at infinity but intersect only at the usual finite intersection point. This is called projective geometry, and is described in more detail in the answer to another question.

In summary, then: in usual geometry, parallel lines do not meet. There is no such thing as infinity, and it is wrong to say that parallel lines meet at infinity.

However, you can construct other geometric systems, whose "points" include not only the points of familiar geometry (describable as coordinate pairs (x,y)), but also other objects. These other objects can be constructed in various ways, as described in the discussion of projective geometry. In these other geometric systems, parallel lines may meet at a "point at infinity". Whether this is one single point or different points for different classes of parallel lines, depends on the particular geometric system you are considering. You may also be interested in our answers and explanations page, which contains a discussion of the question does infinity exist?

As we can see in fractals such as the Mandelbrot Set and Penrose’s Tensor Theory – infinity is a very useful concept in mathematics including geometry – however, infinity does not translate directly in our reasoning, for instance:

1/9 = 0.1111111111 …. to infinity
2/9 = 0.2222222222… to infinity
3/9 = 0.3333333333… to infinity
4/9 = 0.4444444444…. to infinity
5/9 = 0.5555555555…. to infinity
6/9 = 0.6666666666…. to infinity
7/9 = 0.7777777777…. to infinity
8/9 = 0.8888888888…. to infinity
9/9 = 1

General Relativity which expands Special Relativity to show that space/time is warped is described by Reimannian Geometry, which is non-Euclidean per se.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping, Kevmo! It does look interesting.

I suspect you are not getting much interest in subquantum kinetics (yet) because posters are not comfortable enough with the subject to post either pro or con.

[RightWhale]

If your parallel lines meet at infinity, your geometry collapses to a point, a dimensionless point. In any case, the universe is topologically spherical, that is unbounded but finite. Definitely not non-Euclidian overall aside from a hyperbolic or elliptical tendency. Within the Hubble radius as good as flat. That is observational, but you may construct any idea of cosmology you like so long as it can be neither proven nor denied.

[Kevmo]

you may construct any idea of cosmology you like so long as it can be neither proven nor denied.
***Sounds like a religion.

[RightWhale]

Does, doesn’t it.