Watching " Contact " with Jodi Foster always tugs at my heart strings...especially where Jodi's father says
.
" If there isn't any life out there..then it's an awful waste of space "
Besides which when you look at the universe from a God / casuality perspective, it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to put life in one tiny speck.
Yeah, I really liked that movie also. It really put an interesting spin on these questions. The book was ok but the movie was better at the human element.
If they assume that there are so many planets in our galaxy, that gives them a starting point right?
It's amazing how our brain is unable to make-up things we never experienced. We have water, ice, fog, try to imagine another state of a matter. Can you?
If we assume that we are looking at emissions made by intelligent people (because if there is life elsewhere, it's not mandatory that this life is emitting something), this emissions have to be made a long time ago.
When we look at universe we look at the past, the more distant the signal we try to observate the more old he is. Perhaps an intelligent form of life is already emitting, but we will not receive anything before some millions of years.
Someone a few years back did the math on this and found that the chances of earth like planets with intelligent inhabitants was overwhelmingly on the positive side.
The only one I know of to try to put it into an equation is Frank Drake. The eponyminous Drake equation is very rough...
Odds of intelligent life = # of star systems x % that support planetary systems x % that have habital planets x % that developed intelligent civilizations x average lifetime of an intelligent civilization
My units may not all cancel, but that's basically it. Obviously, we are only starting to get a grip on the first two variables, soon we will have a good idea of the third by looking for planets that have a large amount of oxygen. The last two are total unknowns, but it is arguable that intelligence is an invevitable product of evolution thus making the variable "1". The last one is the most iffy, but I'm an optimist who thinks intelligence tends to predure.
I went to one of Drake's lectures and I tried to ask him about the big paradox (I forget the name for it) in SETI research, but he was swamped with other questions. Bascially, there is good reason to believe that if life developed anywhere in the universe it would eventually be everywhere. Here's the reasoning...
The copernican principle suggests that if intelligent life was at least fairly common we would expect to be "in the middle" with respect to the occurance of life in our galaxy. That would mean that other civilizations developed millions of years before us (and some will develop millions of years ahead of us). With a million year head start you could expect those civilizations to have spread througout the galaxy even at sublight speeds. So we should be finding intelligent signals everywhere. So why don't we?
If we assume that we are looking at emissions made by intelligent people (because if there is life elsewhere, it's not mandatory that this life is emitting something), this emissions have to be made a long time ago.
When we look at universe we look at the past, the more distant the signal we try to observate the more old he is. Perhaps an intelligent form of life is already emitting, but we will not receive anything before some millions of years.
this presumes that extra-terrestial life forms don't know how to expedite their signals. we have to learn to not make any presumptions. i'll qualify that by removing the presumption that the signalers are plural, or even life. perhaps, if these signals are not human or from earth, they come from a single odd vibration of some rocks on pluto.
how weird would it be if we found out that these signals were actually our own, but bouncing off the edge of the universe? how much would that fvck with astrology.
How would you look for life outside of our planet?
Basically you assume that to be able to communicate with a 'life form' it needs to be somehow similar to us, hence search for oxygen, water, etc...
While it may not at all be requirement for life, then you start to think about 'What is life'?
What if there are levels of 'life' we cannot imagine, and comprehend?
Look at our planet, we do not think of a rock or piece of furniture as a living object, but in fact, its created from the same material as any other 'living' organism, and in 500,000 years it well may be that these exact atoms will be part of a 'living' thing.
What if there are is 'life' at energy levels, where time and physical form are non-existent?
We would not be able to communicate with such a being.
Nostradamus, that is again assuming that other life would be similar to ours, but then in infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, which in itself can be a 'proof' for any theory, right?
Nostradamus, that is again assuming that other life would be similar to ours, but then in infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, which in itself can be a 'proof' for any theory, right?
Oh the possibilities !
I used oxygen as an example, but in theory you could broaden the search for "life signs" to look for any chemicals that are considered consequences of biological metabolism. I remember a recent report where they detected some molecule in venus's atmosphere that is not known to be created by anything but biological processes. It also happened to occur in a region of venus's atmosphere that is still tolerant to life (as we know it).
But you are right that we could miss a lot of unfamiliar life forms and others might just be hidden from us (like life in Europa's oceans).
Regarding the universe I believe the current leading theory is that the universe is finite but boundless. Using the earth as an analogy- the earth is definately finite, but you can walk over it's surface an infinite number of times. The possibility of other universes in other dimensions or branes is there, but we most likely could never have direct knowledge of them.
The possibility of other universes in other dimensions or branes is there, but we most likely could never have direct knowledge of them.
As I understand it, there is a theoretical possibility of communicating with different universes. Gravitons created on Earth (something theoretically possible but never demonstrated) can head off to different branes ... if we could manage the creation of gravitons, and could manage the direction they went off in, we could send messages to different universes. And theoretically receive them too.
Anthropic principle? That's not a paradox but I get the vibe that's what you mean ... ?
Harald, thanks for trying to supplement my weak memory on at least a couple of threads now.
I know it's not the anthropic principle. I remember reading about it in a SciAm where the article was called "Where is everyone" or "Where are they", something like that.
As I understand it, there is a theoretical possibility of communicating with different universes. Gravitons created on Earth (something theoretically possible but never demonstrated) can head off to different branes ... if we could manage the creation of gravitons, and could manage the direction they went off in, we could send messages to different universes. And theoretically receive them too.
All we need to do is create a graviton receiver!
Easy!
Yeah, I heard of this idea in string theory as a way of explaining why gravity is so weak because it is actually being shared across other universes. My understanding was that their might be an infinite number of universes (each on it's own brane) in which case you would wonder how you could reliably target any particular brane. But hey, if they are infinite then you'd expect gravity to be infinitely diluted across them. Ow, my brain is starting to hurt.
The only one I know of to try to put it into an equation is Frank Drake. The eponyminous Drake equation is very rough...
Odds of intelligent life = # of star systems x % that support planetary systems x % that have habital planets x % that developed intelligent civilizations x average lifetime of an intelligent civilization
My units may not all cancel, but that's basically it. Obviously, we are only starting to get a grip on the first two variables, soon we will have a good idea of the third by looking for planets that have a large amount of oxygen. The last two are total unknowns, but it is arguable that intelligence is an invevitable product of evolution thus making the variable "1". The last one is the most iffy, but I'm an optimist who thinks intelligence tends to predure.
I went to one of Drake's lectures and I tried to ask him about the big paradox (I forget the name for it) in SETI research, but he was swamped with other questions. Bascially, there is good reason to believe that if life developed anywhere in the universe it would eventually be everywhere. Here's the reasoning...
The copernican principle suggests that if intelligent life was at least fairly common we would expect to be "in the middle" with respect to the occurance of life in our galaxy. That would mean that other civilizations developed millions of years before us (and some will develop millions of years ahead of us). With a million year head start you could expect those civilizations to have spread througout the galaxy even at sublight speeds. So we should be finding intelligent signals everywhere. So why don't we?
Well the sad possibility is that any advanced interstellar civilization may not use radio at all. If that's true then all we would pick up is their early, primative, radio emissions. Which might in some cases take very long periods of time to get here.
There's also the possibilty that we may be in a protected area where they want the primatives to not be contaminated.
There is also the possibility that we live in a back water part of the galaxy and just aren't very interesting. Off the beaten path so to speak.
Also maybe the conditions for tool making intelligent cultures need more specialized conditions than those just for life. So intelligent, industrial, tool making life may be comparitively rare.
The truth is we just don't know for sure.......yet.
But it's very likely we aren't the only intelligent life to have arose in all these eons.
Yeah, I heard of this idea in string theory as a way of explaining why gravity is so weak because it is actually being shared across other universes. My understanding was that their might be an infinite number of universes (each on it's own brane) in which case you would wonder how you could reliably target any particular brane. But hey, if they are infinite then you'd expect gravity to be infinitely diluted across them.
Targeting gravitons? Piece of piss. After all, we've invented a machine that can spit out gravitons-as-information on demand. We rock. We can aim those babies for fun.
I wish I'd been a theoretical physicist. Or a rock star.
Out of interest, y'know this dark matter (the invisible mass the universe should have in order for it not to being flying apart) ... well, I wonder if that matter is actually in different branes; we're feeling some of that shared gravity. Have you heard anything about that in string theory?
From an entropy perspective...we ( life : re increasing complexity )shouldn't exist. The probability of life is in an order of miagnitudes against it presence.
There is something definitely odd ( and wonderful ) about the universe...
From an entropy perspective...we ( life : re increasing complexity )shouldn't exist.
That isn?t necessarily true. One could argue that organisms ?make up? for their complexity by increasing the entropy in the surrounding environment. Humanity is a perfect example of that.
Entropy refers more to organization of energy, NOT organization of matter. Matter can be arranged in all sorts of patterns, but that doesn't mean that entropy is decreasing. In fact, useable energy is being converted to waste heat energy all the time. So that is a direct indication that entropy is increasing over time, regardless of how matter ends up.
Here is some cools stuff to get your ticker thinking.
Every single-star solar system must have at least 1 object orbiting it.
Calculating the doppler effect from light emitted from the sun, you can find out how many planets are orbiting, their mass, and distance from the sun.
We found a planet the size of Jupiter orbiting a sun every 4 days!
No visible light that reaches us is emitted from fusion in the sun. It is actually Gamma rays that have lost energy over millions of years and escaped as light. Yea, the light you see is millions of years old.
There are molecules in space. Most are water, ammonia, methane, formaldehyde, alcohol (not wood alcohol, the good stuff!), but to our surprise there are also building blocks for amino acids.
Entropy refers more to organization of energy, NOT organization of matter. Matter can be arranged in all sorts of patterns, but that doesn't mean that entropy is decreasing. In fact, useable energy is being converted to waste heat energy all the time. So that is a direct indication that entropy is increasing over time, regardless of how matter ends up.
Entropy refers directly to the amount of energy available within a closed system. You are correct in stating that entropy is effectively increasing.
The patterns that you refer to are intricately and intimately tied to entropy, in that they very often represent the most effective way to conserve energy. This self organising principle of conservation also leads to complexity.
We see it in ripples, as we do in galaxy clusters. In part life arises from such complexity, but it is not the entire explanation, as an inorganic pattern in and of itself will never lead to "life".
So life & ET signals remain ponderable mysteries worth searching the cosmos for.
Comments
Originally posted by Aquafire
Watching " Contact " with Jodi Foster always tugs at my heart strings...especially where Jodi's father says
.
" If there isn't any life out there..then it's an awful waste of space "
Besides which when you look at the universe from a God / casuality perspective, it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to just to put life in one tiny speck.
Yeah, I really liked that movie also. It really put an interesting spin on these questions. The book was ok but the movie was better at the human element.
It's amazing how our brain is unable to make-up things we never experienced. We have water, ice, fog, try to imagine another state of a matter. Can you?
We are looking for something we know.
When we look at universe we look at the past, the more distant the signal we try to observate the more old he is. Perhaps an intelligent form of life is already emitting, but we will not receive anything before some millions of years.
Originally posted by jimmac
Someone a few years back did the math on this and found that the chances of earth like planets with intelligent inhabitants was overwhelmingly on the positive side.
The only one I know of to try to put it into an equation is Frank Drake. The eponyminous Drake equation is very rough...
Odds of intelligent life = # of star systems x % that support planetary systems x % that have habital planets x % that developed intelligent civilizations x average lifetime of an intelligent civilization
My units may not all cancel, but that's basically it. Obviously, we are only starting to get a grip on the first two variables, soon we will have a good idea of the third by looking for planets that have a large amount of oxygen. The last two are total unknowns, but it is arguable that intelligence is an invevitable product of evolution thus making the variable "1". The last one is the most iffy, but I'm an optimist who thinks intelligence tends to predure.
I went to one of Drake's lectures and I tried to ask him about the big paradox (I forget the name for it) in SETI research, but he was swamped with other questions. Bascially, there is good reason to believe that if life developed anywhere in the universe it would eventually be everywhere. Here's the reasoning...
The copernican principle suggests that if intelligent life was at least fairly common we would expect to be "in the middle" with respect to the occurance of life in our galaxy. That would mean that other civilizations developed millions of years before us (and some will develop millions of years ahead of us). With a million year head start you could expect those civilizations to have spread througout the galaxy even at sublight speeds. So we should be finding intelligent signals everywhere. So why don't we?
Originally posted by Powerdoc
If we assume that we are looking at emissions made by intelligent people (because if there is life elsewhere, it's not mandatory that this life is emitting something), this emissions have to be made a long time ago.
When we look at universe we look at the past, the more distant the signal we try to observate the more old he is. Perhaps an intelligent form of life is already emitting, but we will not receive anything before some millions of years.
this presumes that extra-terrestial life forms don't know how to expedite their signals. we have to learn to not make any presumptions. i'll qualify that by removing the presumption that the signalers are plural, or even life. perhaps, if these signals are not human or from earth, they come from a single odd vibration of some rocks on pluto.
how weird would it be if we found out that these signals were actually our own, but bouncing off the edge of the universe? how much would that fvck with astrology.
Basically you assume that to be able to communicate with a 'life form' it needs to be somehow similar to us, hence search for oxygen, water, etc...
While it may not at all be requirement for life, then you start to think about 'What is life'?
What if there are levels of 'life' we cannot imagine, and comprehend?
Look at our planet, we do not think of a rock or piece of furniture as a living object, but in fact, its created from the same material as any other 'living' organism, and in 500,000 years it well may be that these exact atoms will be part of a 'living' thing.
What if there are is 'life' at energy levels, where time and physical form are non-existent?
We would not be able to communicate with such a being.
Nostradamus, that is again assuming that other life would be similar to ours, but then in infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, which in itself can be a 'proof' for any theory, right?
Oh the possibilities !
Originally posted by piwozniak
Nostradamus, that is again assuming that other life would be similar to ours, but then in infinite universe there are infinite possibilities, which in itself can be a 'proof' for any theory, right?
Oh the possibilities !
I used oxygen as an example, but in theory you could broaden the search for "life signs" to look for any chemicals that are considered consequences of biological metabolism. I remember a recent report where they detected some molecule in venus's atmosphere that is not known to be created by anything but biological processes. It also happened to occur in a region of venus's atmosphere that is still tolerant to life (as we know it).
But you are right that we could miss a lot of unfamiliar life forms and others might just be hidden from us (like life in Europa's oceans).
Regarding the universe I believe the current leading theory is that the universe is finite but boundless. Using the earth as an analogy- the earth is definately finite, but you can walk over it's surface an infinite number of times. The possibility of other universes in other dimensions or branes is there, but we most likely could never have direct knowledge of them.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The possibility of other universes in other dimensions or branes is there, but we most likely could never have direct knowledge of them.
As I understand it, there is a theoretical possibility of communicating with different universes. Gravitons created on Earth (something theoretically possible but never demonstrated) can head off to different branes ... if we could manage the creation of gravitons, and could manage the direction they went off in, we could send messages to different universes. And theoretically receive them too.
All we need to do is create a graviton receiver!
Easy!
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
paradox (I forget the name for it) in SETI research, but he was swamped with other questions.
Anthropic principle? That's not a paradox but I get the vibe that's what you mean ... ?
Originally posted by Harald
Anthropic principle? That's not a paradox but I get the vibe that's what you mean ... ?
Harald, thanks for trying to supplement my weak memory on at least a couple of threads now.
I know it's not the anthropic principle. I remember reading about it in a SciAm where the article was called "Where is everyone" or "Where are they", something like that.
Let's say we found it!, After 30,000 years of search we found a life, but what if that life form is 1,000,000, years ahead of us?
We'll be like a ladybug trying to communicate with humans.
:-)
Originally posted by Harald
As I understand it, there is a theoretical possibility of communicating with different universes. Gravitons created on Earth (something theoretically possible but never demonstrated) can head off to different branes ... if we could manage the creation of gravitons, and could manage the direction they went off in, we could send messages to different universes. And theoretically receive them too.
All we need to do is create a graviton receiver!
Easy!
Yeah, I heard of this idea in string theory as a way of explaining why gravity is so weak because it is actually being shared across other universes. My understanding was that their might be an infinite number of universes (each on it's own brane) in which case you would wonder how you could reliably target any particular brane. But hey, if they are infinite then you'd expect gravity to be infinitely diluted across them. Ow, my brain is starting to hurt.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The only one I know of to try to put it into an equation is Frank Drake. The eponyminous Drake equation is very rough...
Odds of intelligent life = # of star systems x % that support planetary systems x % that have habital planets x % that developed intelligent civilizations x average lifetime of an intelligent civilization
My units may not all cancel, but that's basically it. Obviously, we are only starting to get a grip on the first two variables, soon we will have a good idea of the third by looking for planets that have a large amount of oxygen. The last two are total unknowns, but it is arguable that intelligence is an invevitable product of evolution thus making the variable "1". The last one is the most iffy, but I'm an optimist who thinks intelligence tends to predure.
I went to one of Drake's lectures and I tried to ask him about the big paradox (I forget the name for it) in SETI research, but he was swamped with other questions. Bascially, there is good reason to believe that if life developed anywhere in the universe it would eventually be everywhere. Here's the reasoning...
The copernican principle suggests that if intelligent life was at least fairly common we would expect to be "in the middle" with respect to the occurance of life in our galaxy. That would mean that other civilizations developed millions of years before us (and some will develop millions of years ahead of us). With a million year head start you could expect those civilizations to have spread througout the galaxy even at sublight speeds. So we should be finding intelligent signals everywhere. So why don't we?
Well the sad possibility is that any advanced interstellar civilization may not use radio at all. If that's true then all we would pick up is their early, primative, radio emissions. Which might in some cases take very long periods of time to get here.
There's also the possibilty that we may be in a protected area where they want the primatives to not be contaminated.
There is also the possibility that we live in a back water part of the galaxy and just aren't very interesting. Off the beaten path so to speak.
Also maybe the conditions for tool making intelligent cultures need more specialized conditions than those just for life. So intelligent, industrial, tool making life may be comparitively rare.
The truth is we just don't know for sure.......yet.
But it's very likely we aren't the only intelligent life to have arose in all these eons.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
Yeah, I heard of this idea in string theory as a way of explaining why gravity is so weak because it is actually being shared across other universes. My understanding was that their might be an infinite number of universes (each on it's own brane) in which case you would wonder how you could reliably target any particular brane. But hey, if they are infinite then you'd expect gravity to be infinitely diluted across them.
Targeting gravitons? Piece of piss. After all, we've invented a machine that can spit out gravitons-as-information on demand. We rock. We can aim those babies for fun.
I wish I'd been a theoretical physicist. Or a rock star.
Out of interest, y'know this dark matter (the invisible mass the universe should have in order for it not to being flying apart) ... well, I wonder if that matter is actually in different branes; we're feeling some of that shared gravity. Have you heard anything about that in string theory?
Off topic, but fun.
There is something definitely odd ( and wonderful ) about the universe...
Who said it wasn't user "friendly" ?
Originally posted by Aquafire
From an entropy perspective...we ( life : re increasing complexity )shouldn't exist.
That isn?t necessarily true. One could argue that organisms ?make up? for their complexity by increasing the entropy in the surrounding environment. Humanity is a perfect example of that.
Entropy refers more to organization of energy, NOT organization of matter. Matter can be arranged in all sorts of patterns, but that doesn't mean that entropy is decreasing. In fact, useable energy is being converted to waste heat energy all the time. So that is a direct indication that entropy is increasing over time, regardless of how matter ends up.
Every single-star solar system must have at least 1 object orbiting it.
Calculating the doppler effect from light emitted from the sun, you can find out how many planets are orbiting, their mass, and distance from the sun.
We found a planet the size of Jupiter orbiting a sun every 4 days!
No visible light that reaches us is emitted from fusion in the sun. It is actually Gamma rays that have lost energy over millions of years and escaped as light. Yea, the light you see is millions of years old.
There are molecules in space. Most are water, ammonia, methane, formaldehyde, alcohol (not wood alcohol, the good stuff!), but to our surprise there are also building blocks for amino acids.
More facts later if you want.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Just a point of information:
Entropy refers more to organization of energy, NOT organization of matter. Matter can be arranged in all sorts of patterns, but that doesn't mean that entropy is decreasing. In fact, useable energy is being converted to waste heat energy all the time. So that is a direct indication that entropy is increasing over time, regardless of how matter ends up.
Entropy refers directly to the amount of energy available within a closed system. You are correct in stating that entropy is effectively increasing.
The patterns that you refer to are intricately and intimately tied to entropy, in that they very often represent the most effective way to conserve energy. This self organising principle of conservation also leads to complexity.
We see it in ripples, as we do in galaxy clusters. In part life arises from such complexity, but it is not the entire explanation, as an inorganic pattern in and of itself will never lead to "life".
So life & ET signals remain ponderable mysteries worth searching the cosmos for.