Posted on 02/02/2016 1:30:21 AM PST by LibWhacker
Two big ideas often come up in discussions about the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI. One is the Drake Equation, which estimates the number of civilizations in our Galaxy whose signals we might be able to detect--potentially thousands, according to plausible estimates. The other is the so-called Fermi paradox, which claims that we should see intelligent aliens here if they exist anywhere, because they would inevitably colonize the Galaxy by star travel--and since we don't see any obvious signs of aliens here, searching for their signals is pointless.
The Drake Equation is perfectly genuine: it was created by astronomer and SETI pioneer Frank Drake. The Fermi paradox, however, is a myth. It is named for the physicist Enrico Fermi--but Fermi never made such a claim.
I'd like to explain why the so-called Fermi paradox is mistaken, based on my deep-dive research on the topic, because this mistake had inhibited the search for E.T., which I think is worthwhile. It was cited by Sen. William Proxmire (D-WI) as a reason for killing NASA's SETI program in 1981; the program was restarted at the urging of Carl Sagan, but was killed dead in 1993 by Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV). Since then, no searches in the U.S. have received government funds, even though thousands of new planets have been discovered orbiting stars other than our sun.
Enrico Fermi, a Nobel prizewinner who built the first nuclear reactor, never published a word on the subject of extraterrestrials. We know something about his views because physicist Eric Jones collected written accounts from the three surviving people present at a 1950 lunch in Los Alamos where the so-called Fermi paradox had its roots: Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller, and Herbert York (Fermi died in 1954).
According to these eyewitnesses, they were chatting about a cartoon in The New Yorker showing cheerful aliens emerging from a flying saucer carrying trash cans stolen from the streets of New York City, and Fermi asked "Where is everybody?" Everyone realized he was referring to the fact that we haven't seen any alien spaceships, and the conversation turned to the feasibility of interstellar travel. York seemed to have had the clearest memory, recalling of Fermi:
"... he went on to conclude that the reason that we hadn't been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn't last long enough for it to happen."
Both York and Teller seemed to think Fermi was questioning the feasibility of interstellar travel--nobody thought he was questioning the possible existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. So the so-called Fermi paradox--which does question the existence of E.T.--misrepresents Fermi's views. Fermi's skepticism about interstellar travel is not surprising, because in 1950 rockets had not yet reached orbit, much less another planet or star.
If Fermi wasn't the source of this pessimistic idea, where did it come from?
The notion "... they are not here; therefore they do not exist" first appeared in print in 1975, when astronomer Michael Hart claimed that if smart aliens existed, they would inevitably colonize the Milky Way. If they existed anywhere, they would be here. Since they aren't, Hart concluded that humans are probably the only intelligent life in our galaxy, so that looking for intelligent life elsewhere is "probably a waste of time and money." His argument has been challenged on many grounds--maybe star travel is not feasible, or maybe nobody chooses to colonize the galaxy, or maybe we were visited long ago and the evidence is buried with the dinosaurs--but the idea has become entrenched in thinking about alien civilizations.
In 1980, the physicist Frank Tipler elaborated on Hart's arguments by addressing one obvious question: where would anybody get the resources needed to colonize billions of stars? He suggested "a self-replicating universal constructor with intelligence comparable to the human level." Just send one of these babies out to a neighboring star, tell it to build copies of itself using local materials, and send the copies on to other stars until the Galaxy is crawling with them. Tipler argued that absence of such gizmos on Earth proved that ours is the only intelligence anywhere in the entire Universe--not just the Milky Way galaxy--which seems like an awfully long leap from the absence of aliens on our one planet.
Hart and Tipler clearly deserve credit for the idea at the heart of the so-called Fermi paradox. Over the years, however, their idea has been confused with Fermi's original question. The confusion evidently started in 1977 when the physicist David G. Stephenson used the phrase 'Fermi paradox' in a paper citing Hart's idea as one possible answer to Fermi's question. The Fermi paradox might be more accurately called the 'Hart-Tipler argument against the existence of technological extraterrestrials', which does not sound quite as authoritative as the old name, but seems fairer to everybody.
As for the paradox, there is none, even in Hart's and Tipler's arguments. There is no logical contradiction between the statement "E.T. might exist elsewhere" and the statement "E.T. is not here" because nobody knows that travel between the stars is possible in the first place.
The Hart-Tipler argument, cloaked in the authority of Fermi's name, has made some people pessimistic about the chances for success in SETI. But the suggestion that we should not look for intelligent life elsewhere because we don't see aliens here is simply silly. There are some signs that the pessimism is lifting, most notably Yuri Milner's privately funded Breakthrough Listen project, which promises to contribute $100 million in funding over ten years. But searching millions of stars for signals at unknown frequencies might take more resources. Our searches typically 'see' a spot on the sky no bigger than the Moon at any moment, which is only a tiny fraction of the sky. If we want to find something interesting in our era, we might need to look harder.
IF SETI is sooooo IMPORTANT, put it out on Kickstarter and let the general public fund it voluntarily.
I’m sure all those rich Hollywood Scientologists, with their inquiring minds, would like to “call home” and will cough up loads of cash!
Whether there is life in another place in the 3-dimensional universe, only God knows.......C.S. Lewis in his space Trilogy surmised that there could be.
BUT, it is certain that there is life in another dimension - the spiritual one......the one in which God lives and who calls Himself “the God of the living....” Jesus told the woman at the well that “God is spirit.....”, not flesh and blood.
His Son, Jesus Christ, had been in that dimension for all eternity - BUT about 2000 years ago entered this dimension and took on flesh and blood, and forever now retains His physical body.
SciFi nuts love the thought of other dimensions, and indeed, there may be 5 or more.
But the 4th dimension - the spiritual one - was clearly spoken of and revealed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and written about much by the apostles John and Paul...........” . . . we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” II Corin. 4:18. or 2 Corin. 4:18 - whichever one prefers. ;-)
We could not live on a planet with truly alien life forms. Better off finding a sterile rock in a good solar location and cultivating our own acceptable life forms.
What’s wrong with you people? You don’t have embedded quantum entanglement communicators? Sheesh!
It is this vastness you mention that causes me to believe that realistic space travel will be nearly impossible. Because realistic space travel is nearly impossible, I think the chance of us finding life elsewhere is practically zero. The technology hurdle is simply too great.
Physical laws around relativity, time and the speeds required to reach other planets, let alone those planets that are judged to be better suited at supporting life, greatly limit what's possible to explore. I'm a firm believer that the speed of light is the universal speed limit. Unless some new property of physics and nature is discovered, I don't know how one, we can get out and explore; or two, establish or act upon any sort of communications with another life form.
You pose some interesting questions, but there are some mighty big "ifs" as well. So many things would have to come together--evolved, intelligent life, the capability of space travel, and this life form's civilization overlapping ours in terms of their technology.
The ability to replicate intelligence is an interesting one, but I don't have the mental capacity to grasp how one would employ such a thing.
Oh, I agree with that. Nothing in the premise supports the conclusion.
I still believe that with the size of the Universe and the number of Star systems involved, that it is illogical to conclude that life exists on only one tiny, tiny, unnoticeable planet in the outer bands of a tiny galaxy.
Â
Well, see--when a man really likes a woman, they....
nevermind
It is illogical to conclude that life exists elsewhere, without evidence.
...Our radio transmissions might appear to aliens as some indian smoke signals would appear to an F-16 pilot passing overhead...
..but what if the F-16 pilot was looking for smoke signals?
Primitive yes, but still recognizable.
An alien culture looking for intelligent life would not necessarily be looking for MORE intelligent life but any life, intelligent or otherwise, and would look through all the signals available.
And who’s to say that we are not the most intelligent life in the galaxy/universe (scary thought I know) which brings up another question.
Where are our outposts and colonies?
Why, evolution and killing babies are the exact same religion.
No one can offer any real opposition to that opinion.
However, what are the odds that the life that must exist elsewhere would ever cross paths with life here on earth.
It is not sufficient that the two lives cross paths in physical location they must also cross paths at the same point in time.
In consideration of the vastness of empty space what are the odds that different forms of life cross paths in both space and time. Life that is one billion years ahead or behind another life or separated by billions of light years in distance may not recognize each other.
My understanding is that living out here in the exurbs of our solar system is one of the reasons we had sufficient time on earth to develop intelligent life.
“My understanding is that living out here in the exurbs of our solar system is one of the reasons we had sufficient time on earth to develop intelligent life.”
This ‘understanding’ was granted to you by whom? And how would they know - unless they’ve been to the center?
Besides it makes sense.
Even being out here in the hinterlands, Earth has experienced some spectacularly life changing events. The best guess is that the moon was created when the Earth was hit by a large planet. Several massive extinction events are most likely the result of meteor/asteroid collisions. We are told that a gamma ray burst would strip the Earth of its atmosphere. We are told there are rogue planets soaring through the galaxy that were ejected from their solar systems, etc.
These events would be experienced more often in parts of the solar system more densely populated with stars. It's just a matter of probability.
That may apply if all life must be 1) human-like 2) carbon based 3) if the ‘science authority’ had inside knowledge or was just making it up to gain grant money.
There is absolutely no evidence that the moon has anything to do with an Earth origin - wrong chemical/mineral composition to begin with. More ‘science authority’ speculation for grant money. Explain why the density of the moon’s crust is hardest nearest the surface and consists of rare elements not found on Earth. Explain why one side of the moon appears ‘melted’ while the other is completely pockmarked with craters exhibiting no ‘melting.’
Again on extinctions there is no evidence to back one theory over the other; and Occam’s Razor only works if one knows all the possibilities which no one knows. It just as likely that the solar system passed through a high energy dust cloud and life changed. There is no explanation for The Cambrian Explosion where whole phyla appeared almost literally overnight.
Again “we are told” that the Earth is warming and man is the cause ... believe that stuff if you choose. No one has ever found a ‘rouge’ planet - pure speculation.
Always be skeptical in science especially with pronouncements by some ‘science authority.’ There is no reason why some form of life, intelligent life, based on energy, for instance, could not arise in the ultra high energy center. You need to delve deeply into high energy physics and particle interactions to understand that there is no limit given 13 billion years to become whatever life chooses.
In closing: “The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.†- J. B. S. Haldane
of course, there’s another thought to process.
ever since man wanted to transport things... he has forever tried to improve that process, thereby making life easier. so when the guys dragging things around on sticks ran into the first guy using a wheel and axle... we’ve been looking to improve transport ever since. as long as the usage, and possibly replication, of the transport system is within the capabilities of the people to use it... it would continue to be used long after the village (or world) that created it, died off.
realizing that, and combining it with the current theory of stable worm holes bouncing around physics... we come to an interesting prospect.
you see, any society advanced enough to develop a stable worm hole would also be advanced enough to create a rudimentary AI. as such, it would be possible they would send out robotic drones (doesn’t have to be a full blown AI) to place worm hole receivers. this would quickly evolve into the drones building these portals, or gates, using materials found at the remote site. they would also most likely program the drone to replicate itself first, then the gate, dialing back to the home world to announce the location and conditions of the new gate, then speeding off in opposite directions to repeat the process.
forever ... into deep space.
if such a thing were possible in the universe... EVEN ONCE... then it MUST exist at this point in time -somewhere- out there. robots flying between star systems, scouting for suitable planets, replicating themselves and a gate, then flying on. spreading this interstellar network of roads across the heavens ... long after originating society dies out.
such a system would be so infinitely useful ... it would have to continue to exist, once created.
such a system could easily spread life throughout the universe.
the question is... is there such a gate nearby and have we already found it?
Here's a thought that relates to Mathematical Induction. Let's accept that mankind is near to having the ability to terraform another planet, and make it suitable for human colonization. And that in time, civilization will develop in such terraformed entities, and some will themselves develop the abilities to terraform and colonize. It takes so long they will have no cultural memory of their beginnings, perhaps some ancient lore or mysterious aritifacts.
Let's go back one step instead of forward. Isn't there a very high probability that we are the result of terraforming and colonization?
Bingo. Nicely put. One does not really confer scientific credibility through the judicious use of arithmetical operators on non-arithmetical terms. The Drake equation is nothing more than an attempt to set down some of the factors. It does not pretend (or shouldn't) to be exhaustive.
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.