Ask me about the Universe (crash, Earth, satellite, spacecraft)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been in the shadows this last month. My wife and I decided it would be best to stay in Florida where I work now rather than moving to CERN. We are ready to start our family, and her parents are moving here before Winter. Tough decision to leave the country even though it's a great opportunity, but one in which I already do now. At CERN I would see to it that the papers have a higher chance of accuracy and pass the muster test before they get to people like me. In reality, it's the same thing, but I get to hear about it earlier at CERN. So, Florida stays. :-)
Sounds like a really interesting job. At you at liberty to disclose the Journal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by beninfl
Sure, the diagram is wrong because it shows a broken image icon.
Good luck. I hope you can get further than I could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by beninfl
What your asking is essentially the Fermi Paradox. I could explain it real fast, but I think this news article, oddly from the Huffington Post, does a *fantastic* job at describing the problem. Read it all the way, it's a very long article for a news site but goes over mostly everything.
I have never felt the Fermi Paradox or Drake Equation have properly explained the real improbability of technologically advanced intelligent life.
The article in HuffPo posits a single "great filter." That is simplistic beyond belief. The Drake equation hints at a few filters, but again doesn't do more than a surface scratch.
I'll start with the unwarranted idea that we are currently (for a very brief period in time) a technologically advanced civilization. In order for us to get here, not only did certain criteria need to be met, but they had to be met IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE and WITHIN CERTAIN TIMEFRAMES. That part of the equation has been consistently underestimated or avoided. Many of the criteria are ephemeral, especially on the time scales even larger than those used in geology.
If we use a deck of playing cards as an analogy, the current way these equations are used is similar to the odds of drawing a royal flush . For example, there are 4 different ways to draw a Royal flush (one for each suit), so the probability is 4/2,598,960, or about 0.000154%. Within that model, the probability of intelligent life vs. the number of star might seem extremely high, given the number of stars in the galaxy or universe.
However... once you begin to recognize that each step towards the formation of intelligent life has to be IN ORDER, that is like saying that the royal flush has to be drawn in the order of ACE, KING, QUEEN, JACK, TEN. That changes the odds tremendously even within five cards.
Going further along the analogy, I don't find it at all unreasonable at all to think that there are at least 52 different "filters" to get to intelligent TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED life, with the odds of successfully navigating each filter no more than 1 in 52. Some are incredible long shots, like avoiding bursts of life killing radiation, which is effectively impossible closer to the galactic cores. If you were to demand a deck of cards be shuffled and laid out in one particular order, the chances of that order coming up are 1 in 80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883 277824000000000000.
Even among humanity, there are thousands of cultures that never had a need to go beyond rudimentary technology. No other species - of the MILLIONS of species on the planet - have more than the simplest of tools or communication skills.
Literally, our recent ascendancy can be traced to the chance changes in a few dozen genes within an organism that traces back to the fourth or fifth try at life on the planet. There are no dinosaur computers. There are no traces of any of the pre-extinction event species having technology. There is no inherent NEED for creatures using advanced technology to survive day to day life, and any creature that does try it becomes subject to extinction through the LOSS of that technology, be it by advanced predation, environmental changes, or massive extinction events.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,138,952 times
Reputation: 8104
Hmmmmm ......
Quote:
The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. A Type I civilization uses all available resources impinging on its home planet, Type II harnesses all the energy of its star, and Type III of its galaxy. The scale is only hypothetical, but it puts energy consumption in a cosmic perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Soviet astronomer Nikolai Kardashev. Various extensions of the scale have been proposed since, from a wider range of power levels (types 0, IV and V) to the use of metrics other than pure power. Kardashev scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If a civilization were at Stage II, it should show some sort of characteristic effects of its sun being partly blocked for use. And as mentioned, they might not use EM for communication, or maybe they scavenge what little waste energy they use, so we wouldn't "see" them unless looking for that type of star (instead of relying on EM signals).
I assume that a civilization at that level wouldn't be interested in contacting us primitives until they see if we survive our challenges. Or maybe the speed of light limitation would still be a barrier even for such an advanced race, so as to not make it worthwhile to look for other civilizations more than a few light years away.
Last edited by Woof; 06-23-2014 at 12:08 AM..
Reason: OOOPS, just noticed the article, and am reading it.
I have never felt the Fermi Paradox or Drake Equation have properly explained the real improbability of technologically advanced intelligent life.
The article in HuffPo posits a single "great filter." That is simplistic beyond belief. The Drake equation hints at a few filters, but again doesn't do more than a surface scratch.
---------
Literally, our recent ascendancy can be traced to the chance changes in a few dozen genes within an organism that traces back to the fourth or fifth try at life on the planet. There are no dinosaur computers. There are no traces of any of the pre-extinction event species having technology. There is no inherent NEED for creatures using advanced technology to survive day to day life, and any creature that does try it becomes subject to extinction through the LOSS of that technology, be it by advanced predation, environmental changes, or massive extinction events.
I agree that neither the Fermi Paradox or the Drake Equation provide a satisfactory answer to the question of whether there is life elsewhere or not. The Drake Equation is generally seen as a methodical starting point. Fermi Paradox seems to focus on if there's life out there why haven't we heard from anyone, where as the Drake Equation seems to be looking more at the chances of the likelihood that life could have emerged elsewhere. Even the so-called "revised Drake Equation", by Sara Seager, which expands on the Drake Equation, is still extremely limited. It's one thing to try to work out such probablities in our own galaxy, which is an incredibly daunting and apparently unrealistic task, but virtually insane to try to second guess such applications all galaxies in the entire observable universe. There are far too many variables and conditions missing from both the Fermi Paradox and the Drake Equation. You're quite right. Neither do anything more than scratch as the surface. It's like trying to solve a picture puzzle from a single piece out of a billion piece set.
While considering conditions such as mass extinctions that have contributed to the emergence and evolution of life here on Earth through genetic changes allowing for better adaptation to such changes, I think the best we can say is that's how it happened here on Earth. Granted it involved drastic, sudden and massive environmental changes. But that might not be the only way for life to emerge and evolve. There's no reason to think that such genetic changes and adaptations due to environmental changes necessarily apply everywhere. It's possible that minor changes, such as climate change (just an example) that doesn't cause mass extinction, genetic changes could still gradually occur through a natural mutation of the genes and still lead to a technologically advanced intelligent civilization. However, to be fair, I think it would be very unlikely for an advanced technological society to evolve and develop without being able to control and utilize something as simple but important as fire. That might pretty much rule out water or oceanic dwellers by limiting them from advancing enough to develop such technologies, leaving it to land dwellers. The thing is, as pointed out, there are too many variables involved for something like the Drake Equation to provide a firm solution. All we really have is a single model for the evolution of life based on what we know about life on Earth. That's all we have to work with. It's one way life has evolved and developed in the galaxy and the universe, but it might not be the only way. We're still very much in the infancy of exploring the cosmos.
Hmmmmm ...... If a civilization were at Stage II, it should show some sort of characteristic effects of its sun being partly blocked for use. And as mentioned, they might not use EM for communication, or maybe they scavenge what little waste energy they use, so we wouldn't "see" them unless looking for that type of star (instead of relying on EM signals).
I assume that a civilization at that level wouldn't be interested in contacting us primitives until they see if we survive our challenges. Or maybe the speed of light limitation would still be a barrier even for such an advanced race, so as to not make it worthwhile to look for other civilizations more than a few light years away.
This may be pretty unlikely, but I wonder if it might be possible that in the evolution or this stage of the universe (the age of stars), that we might be among the first to emerge with an ability to develop a technological civilization? While there might be highly advanced civilizations as you mentioned, we're no where close to knowing that with any degree of certainty. Either way, any way you look at it, it's all currently nothing more than speculation.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,426,695 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
While considering conditions such as mass extinctions that have contributed to the emergence and evolution of life here on Earth through genetic changes allowing for better adaptation to such changes, I think the best we can say is that's how it happened here on Earth. Granted it involved drastic, sudden and massive environmental changes. But that might not be the only way for life to emerge and evolve. There's no reason to think that such genetic changes and adaptations due to environmental changes necessarily apply everywhere. It's possible that minor changes, such as climate change (just an example) that doesn't cause mass extinction, genetic changes could still gradually occur through a natural mutation of the genes and still lead to a technologically advanced intelligent civilization.
Evolution is a continuous process and is occurring everyday all over this planet among plants, animals and humans. Absolutely climate change is resulting in genetic drifts. It is fascinating to speculate just how the Dinosaurs evolved to the mammoth sizes they were. What were the conditions on Earth like at that time to allow for the selection of Dinosaurs? Are there Dinosaurs being selected right now out in the Universe...far far away in another Galaxy? It would bet on it.
The thing is, as pointed out, there are too many variables involved for something like the Drake Equation to provide a firm solution. All we really have is a single model for the evolution of life based on what we know about life on Earth. That's all we have to work with. It's one way life has evolved and developed in the galaxy and the universe, but it might not be the only way. We're still very much in the infancy of exploring the cosmos.
It seems possible to me that evolution is a Universal phenomenon. But you are right..it is only speculation. There are atmospheres and molecules in the Universe that we have not discovered and most likely never will. I am certain there are atoms and molecules that will remain undiscovered...could these be rapid evolution molecules? Maybe evolution occurs at a much more rapid pace on some planets...so rapid that it is seen within a lifetime?
I feel confident in saying that humans will never develop the technologically advanced measuring devices or advanced space travel abilities to be able to measure what is out there in that vast fascinating Universe. I need my Space I need my Outer Space!
Evolution is a continuous process and is occurring everyday all over this planet among plants, animals and humans. Absolutely climate change is resulting in genetic drifts. It is fascinating to speculate just how the Dinosaurs evolved to the mammoth sizes they were. What were the conditions on Earth like at that time to allow for the selection of Dinosaurs? Are there Dinosaurs being selected right now out in the Universe...far far away in another Galaxy? It would bet on it.
I think we both agree that climatic conditions, at least here on Earth, made a major contribution in directing the course of evolution on this planet, as well as mass extinctions. There are several sources that could cause such major changes. I don't doubt that if there are other planets elsewhere around the universe on which life has emerged, then evolution is most likely at work. While there may indeed be early life forms that might have evolved on such planets, equivalent to dinosaurs, I don't think they necessarily have to be dinosaurs. Evolution works along whatever path is available that various life forms can find an advantage to survive and thrive. The common characteristic is change. I'm also not sure that mass extinction is an absolute requirement to evolutionary changes, but rather is one way such changes can take place. That's not to say climate change wouldn't make a difference, but my guess is that climate changes that result in mass extinction might not always be an essential part to evolutionary changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TVC15
It seems possible to me that evolution is a Universal phenomenon. But you are right..it is only speculation. There are atmospheres and molecules in the Universe that we have not discovered and most likely never will. I am certain there are atoms and molecules that will remain undiscovered...could these be rapid evolution molecules? Maybe evolution occurs at a much more rapid pace on some planets...so rapid that it is seen within a lifetime?
I feel confident in saying that humans will never develop the technologically advanced measuring devices or advanced space travel abilities to be able to measure what is out there in that vast fascinating Universe. I need my Space I need my Outer Space!
I think we could have the technological potential to develop advanced measuring devices and space travel abilities to explore some areas such as other solar systems, at least within a reasonable distance, with long term goals using robotic probes. It could take a long time to get a message back. We might eventually be inventive enough to develop spacecrafts capable of transporting humans, but any starship able to reach near light speed would likely include other problems. If anything, my bet would be on gigantic, self-sustaining, multi-generational spacecrafts, literally space colonies, that move through space slower. Although because of the sheer scale of such crafts, I doubt anything like that would happen any time in the foreseeable future though. And again, at the present time, it's all speculation. NASA's Giant Space Colony Concepts Explained (Infographic)
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,426,695 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar
I think we both agree that climatic conditions, at least here on Earth, made a major contribution in directing the course of evolution on this planet, as well as mass extinctions. There are several sources that could cause such major changes. I don't doubt that if there are other planets elsewhere around the universe on which life has emerged, then evolution is most likely at work. While there may indeed be early life forms that might have evolved on such planets, equivalent to dinosaurs, I don't think they necessarily have to be dinosaurs. Evolution works along whatever path is available that various life forms can find an advantage to survive and thrive. The common characteristic is change. I'm also not sure that mass extinction is an absolute requirement to evolutionary changes, but rather is one way such changes can take place. That's not to say climate change wouldn't make a difference, but my guess is that climate changes that result in mass extinction might not always be an essential part to evolutionary changes.
I absolutely agree with you on all points and no it does not take a mass extinction event to prompt evolution...evolution is constantly at work...which is why I think it is at work in the Universe on all planets. The reason I keep referring to the Dinosaurs is because it is the only evidence we have with respect to the evolution of an entirely new species that predominates Earth. I agree that whatever atmospheric and geological conditions that exist on planets that differ from ours, will generate different life forms that will be vastly different from what we know on Earth. As in what we observed with the Dinosaurs...the conditions back then probably were not suitable for our life form to evolve. And our current condition may not be suitable for Dinosaurs to exist in. Certainly the various types of life forms that can be formed on other planets from the processes of evolution are as vast as the Universe.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,298 posts, read 14,138,952 times
Reputation: 8104
I think the greatest "filter" of all is simply the formation of life to begin with. Some scientists seem to assume that it's easy enough to assemble a viable, reproducing cell given a planet in the right temperature range and an area of "primordial soup", but it's not like that at all. It's not just slapping a few hydrocarbon chains together and a cell will eventually emerge, sure as ****tin'. The simplest cell has to juggle a huge number of complex processes simultaneously involving getting food, refining it, transporting it, respiration, and perhaps hardest of all, reproduction into two more of the damn things, that each can do the same complex things almost perfectly, and on for a zillion generations.
I think the greatest "filter" of all is simply the formation of life to begin with. Some scientists seem to assume that it's easy enough to assemble a viable, reproducing cell given a planet in the right temperature range and an area of "primordial soup", but it's not like that at all. It's not just slapping a few hydrocarbon chains together and a cell will eventually emerge, sure as ****tin'. The simplest cell has to juggle a huge number of complex processes simultaneously involving getting food, refining it, transporting it, respiration, and perhaps hardest of all, reproduction into two more of the damn things, that each can do the same complex things almost perfectly, and on for a zillion generations.
That's a good point Woof. The number of variables is incredibly complex and staggering. In addition, life on Earth is the only model we have available to use as a reference. Even at that, there are still a lot of unknowns about the emergence of life here on Earth. However, we can still use what we know to look for similar conditions around the cosmos. After all, we do exist, so the conditions that enable us to emerge, thrive and survive are not without merit, even though we may not have all the details. There might be other conditions that also enable life to emerge that are somewhat different than that of Earth. We know there are some environmental conditions right here on Earth that we could not survive in, and yet, there are living life forms that do. I don't think there's much question that it's taken an enormously long time to go from pimative life forms to highly complex life forms here on Earth. The time factor for that process could possibly be quicker in other locations around the universe, but I'd guess it'd still be a very long period of time. Instead of zillions of generations, maybe just jillions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.