Where is everybody?

[rug]

Fermi's Paradox.

The Fermi paradox (or Fermi's paradox) is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilization and humanity's lack of contact with, or evidence for, such civilizations.The basic points of the argument, made by physicists Enrico Fermi and Michael H. Hart, are:

+ The Sun is a typical star, and relatively young. There are billions of stars in the galaxy that are billions of years older.
+ Almost surely, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.
+ Some of these civilizations may develop interstellar travel, a technology Earth is investigating even now (such as the 100 Year Starship).
+ Even at the slow pace of currently envisioned interstellar travel, the galaxy can be completely colonized in a few tens of millions of years.

According to this line of thinking, the Earth should already have been colonized, or at least visited. But no convincing evidence of this exists. Furthermore, no confirmed signs of intelligence (see Empirical resolution attempts) elsewhere have yet been spotted in our galaxy or (to the extent it would be detectable) elsewhere in the observable universe. Hence Fermi's question, "Where is everybody?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

[upaloopa]

1. In Roswell where else?

I hear there are visits by all kinds of strange beings there each year.

[cbayer]

5. Nope, they are in Rachel, Nevada, on the Extraterrestrial Highway.

Should you be someone who loves the really weird and have some time on your hands, drive this road someday. And when you do, stop at the only place on the road in Rachel.

You may not see any extraterrestrials, but you will see men in black trucks up on the hills watching every person that comes through the area.

Seriously.

[bravenak]

2. In Congress.

All of the Aliens are in Congress.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. my fantasy is to walk up to a Tea Party Congress person ask him or her

"Papers please"

[bravenak]

9. I would love it if you filmed it.

[Goblinmonger]

3. I take the Hawking position

"We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn't want to meet"

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-04/hawking-aliens-are-out-there-and-want-our-resources

[cbayer]

6. Great quote.

[Goblinmonger]

8. The article I like isn't the original interview (just a quick search)

but he basically says that if any alien life gets there, they are just going to take all the resources so they can keep going. And they'll be a heck of a lot more advanced than us so they will have little use for us.

[cbayer]

10. Just like we will do if we are the first to get somewhere, most likely.

[cbayer]

7. I think that our assumptions about what life is may have

inhibited our ability to see it.

[longship]

11. Well, there's that anthropomorphic bias, as you point out. (Updated)

But the Fermi paradox is answered simply.

Interstellar travel is so fucking expensive (in resources), and space is so hostile to life, that nobody does it.

Even attempting to put humans on Mars, our nearest planet, very well may be a death sentence.

Part of the deal is that nasty old rocket equation. Plus, radiation in space (outside Earth's magnetic envelope) is pretty damned horrible and deadly to biology.

On edit: stupid autocorrect.

Myself, I very much like mathematician Ian Stewart's and biologist Jack Cohen's answer.

Just like us on earth -- we are just sitting here wondering where everybody is -- maybe all the extraterrestrials are doing the same. We are all just waiting. (Of course, that would be making assumptions on alien psychology.)

[cbayer]

12. Nobody does it yet, but again I think we are limited by what we

imagine life to be.

Perhaps for some form of life it wouldn't be so expensive and the environment would not be so hostile.

Your use of the word "nobody" is telling all by itself, isn't it?

We may be limited, but does that mean every life form would be limited?

We are limited only by what we can imagine and we think that the laws that apply to us would apply to everything. There may be laws that have not yet been discovered or are even unknowable to us.

Couldn't there be?

[longship]

14. Well, it is pretty sure that the rocket equation applies universally.

Concerning the hostile space environment... Now, I suppose a life form could evolve in a radiation heavy environment. There are bacteria here on earth living in pools of water in nuclear reactors. But let's leave that aside and presume that some shielding can be constructed. (Most of which would be heavy.)

But the rocket equation is not something that one can casually cast aside. Almost all the mass in any rocket taking us to space, even to low Earth orbit, is fuel. And almost all that fuel is expended to just get that mass of fuel out of Earth's gravity well. Well, the Sun has a gravity well, too. Getting to another star in any reasonable time would take an absolutely huge amount of energy, energy even with nuclear power we do not have.

The best prospects may be something like ion drive, which thrusts some satellites, and even the ISS, once they are in orbit. Their thrust is low, but high speed, and are more efficient than chemical rockets. But they still require fuel. Again, the rocket equation rules. There's no way around it because one has to accelerate both the craft and the fuel.

Tsiolkovsky rocket equation

I love pondering about these things.

[cbayer]

15. I don't know anything about the rocket equation but I approach

physics like some people approach religion. I'm taking it on faith.

What I do know is that there everything is just a hypothesis and that new data can turn a widely embraced belief on it's head.

So I don't rule out much of anything.

I think you anthropomorphize when you talk about shielding. What if there were a life form that thrived on the radiation energy?

What if there is another form of energy that we have not even imagined?

Over and over again, beliefs held by humans have been proven wrong. Every time we think we have it right, we find out we don't. Those that embrace today's scientific knowledge as the ultimate truth are no different than those that embraced the beliefs about greek gods.

When you talk about crafts and fuel, you have limited your palette.

[longship]

22. Well, what can one say. The modern scientific method is quite conservative.

That means new theory tends to preserve and expand previous theory, not replace it. Examples abound.

We still use Newtonian gravitation and dynamics to land a craft on a comet, even though Einstein's equations replaced them. It is not likely that the rocket equation will be overturned anytime soon, if ever. Newton was pretty accurate on force-energy-acceleration dynamics. Again, humans landed a probe on an 84,000 km/hour comet using Newton a few days ago. That's like hitting a bullet with a bullet while riding a horse (thank you, Montgomery Scott ).

Physics works because it is correct within a very narrow margin of error. (And yes, that happens to be my expertise.) And yes, there are things that humans still do not know. But it is not very likely to be anything like overturning basic physics like Newtonian dynamics, energy conservation, or thermodynamics, which no matter how far we look into the cosmos, even back some 13 billion years, appear to be principles extant everywhere and for all time within our universe. Were that not a fact, the universe we see would be very different than the one we do see.

The meta experiment of science -- built into the body of theory is its possible destruction -- has been ongoing for a few centuries now. Science might not be able to tell us everything. But within its domain, it is the only thing we have. As Carl Sagan said, "Science delivers the goods." (N.B., Nobody thinks he was making a statement on marketing there. )

There are great possibilities for advancement in the future. But I highly suspect anybody traveling between stars will not be using warp drive. Because any new technology will still have to obey the rules in our universe. And the distance between stars is a cruel mistress.

Regards.

[cbayer]

26. Oh, but there are also theories that destroy and replace previous theory.

One only has to look at the history of modern medicine to see that. While I think new theory provides new areas for exploration, it sometimes slams some doors shut.

However, you are way over my head at this point. I have struggled with physics every time I have encountered it. I am grateful when someone offers an explanation that I can understand, but, like I said, I still have to take it on faith.

I would only propose that we don't have all the rules in our universe and some of the ones we do have may have to be altered or abandoned.

Have a wonderful turkey day.

[longship]

30. You, too, my good friend.

Gobble. Gobble.

[longship]

16. There's always the Bussard Ramjet, I suppose.

It gobbles up fuel from the interstellar medium, and like a jet engine accelerates it out the back.

Bussard ramjet

Of course, they would be ginormous.

[cbayer]

21. But what is ginormous to us might be the size of a cell phone to something else, no?

[longship]

27. Well, one can posit a class II or class III civilization, I suppose.

Kardashev scale.

And such a civilization would certainly leave a footprint in the galaxy greater than ours. And D'ya know what? The SETI program is looking for them, and has been since 1960. But the galaxy is very big -- some 200 billion stars or so. We're so far basically just scratching the surface with SETI. Regardless, they press on, which is good.

Time will tell. Seth Shostak seems to think we may find extraterrestrial life within a couple of decades. I am inclined to agree. But it will likely not be multicellular unless we get really lucky, or something decides to visit. The latter is not likely, I suspect.

My bet is on Mars or Europa, maybe Enceladus.

I love discussing this stuff.

[cbayer]

31. Speaking of the SETI program, I had the great privilege to visit the Very Large Array.

Contact is one of my favorite movies of all time and going to the VLA was a dream come true.

Of course, most of what they do is mapping, but SETI still uses the facility.

It is, not surprisingly, in the middle of absolute nowhere. They had to find a place where interference would be at an absolute minimum.

Lagniappe - some of the best chili cheeseburgers on earth can be found in the closest towns (not very close, btw).

Cells? Cells are steps ahead on the evolutionary ladder. Life could have veered off in a completely different direction before ever getting to that stage.

[longship]

32. Cool! I like Contact, too.

It took a slightly different tack from the book, not all that I liked. But I still like to watch it once in a while. Carl Sagan's philosophy still comes through.

The VLA? I am jealous.

I love touring big science locations. I've been to Mount Palomar and stood under the 200" Hale telescope, the bottom of which was still some 17' above my head. I've also had a VIP tour of the Tevatron at Fermilab when I was working at nearby Argonne National Lab for senior research. (No, I didn't get to go into the accelerator tunnel, rather deadly radiation when it's operating.)

The VLA is another on my list. Don't know if I'll ever get there.

There's always the Atacama desert in Chile... Lots of big science there, nearly all of it at very high altitude. And Mauna Kea. And, of course, the LHC in Geneva.

And there's always Arecibo, also featured in Contact.

[cbayer]

33. I love things like this.

We came across the largest wind farm in the world in Mexico completely by accident. It was stunning.

Many on your list are also on mine and some are entirely new to me.

My favorite place to go as a child was the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. It was within walking distance of my house and I could easily spend all day in there.

My love of science started early and remains to this day…

but physics continues to baffle me, lol.

[longship]

34. Must be the vector calculus and the Eigenvectors.

I mean your bafflement of physics.

You ought to try quantum field theory some time. If baffles even quantum physicists. Still, it is the most precise scientific theory on the planet and they've been trying to break it for four decades. Yet, there has to be something beyond it. Maybe the LHC will do it.

"If you think you know quantum theory, you don't know quantum theory."
Richard Feynman, 1964 Nobel Laureate for his contribution on Quantum Electrodynamics

[cbayer]

35. Vectors are the very first thing that stumped me.

I had no problem at all with calculus and loved the three years of it that I took.

At this time, I am trying to watch Brian Cox's series on "Life". He has been able to explain some things about quantum physics that I actually understood. They are very basic but it felt good to get it.

Would love to see the LHC.

[longship]

36. Well, I have not used my advanced math for years.

However, I've never really lost it all. But if my life depended on it now, I would have to do some serious boning up.

I have the first DVD of Cox's "Wonders of the Universe" on the way from Netflicks. Unfortunately, it did not arrive for Thanksgiving. The second DVD is next in the queue.

Really love Brian Cox.

The only way to understand quantum is the basics. The more you know about it, the stranger it is, as aptly Feynman said. Don't feel bad. It's a real mind job.

[cbayer]

37. I don't think that is streaming here.

We get a limited selection, but I also love him. He has a way of explaining things that is at least as good as Neil deGrasse Tyson.

We are having a hell of a time streaming in our current location, but we are moving in two days and I hope things will improve substantially. I have a long list of things to catch up with.

I have sometimes thought about going back to calculus just for the fun of it. I would have to start at the very beginning, but it could be fun.

[mindwalker_i]

13. Take a look at how fast technology is developing here on Earth

When I was a kid, it was the very early beginning of personal computers. I bought on myself at age 13 with 3k of RAM. A month or two later, I got a tape drive to store programs. TVs were these big-ass bulky things and stayed that way for another 20 years. Now look where we are: I carry 32GB of memory in my pocket on a stick - 200,000 times the storage of my first floppy disks. Digital electronics are EVERYWHERE! And, we're just starting to work on computers that will use the physics at the quantum level.

In terms of physics, humans have learned a whole lot about the universe, but we still have a long way to go. Quantum hints that the universe is very different than how we perceive it. Our knowledge is progressing very fast in relative to how it used to be, and kit seems likely that in a century, we won't look at the universe at all like we do now. I doubt that the way people live then will have any resemblance to now, and 500 years out, it's completely beyond the ability to predict.

The point is, any civilization that has gone through evolution past where we are now (significantly) would be unrecognizable. Either that or intelligence leads to its own destruction.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Looking for the wrong thing.

http://www.ted.com/talks/susan_blackmore_on_memes_and_temes

[edhopper]

18. This is only a question

about technologically advanced species with a desire to explore. There can be intelligent life that doesn't develop technology. Highly evolved whales might have no need, for instance.

It took 3 billion years and a few catastrophes for us to evolve with this intelligence, it is not necessarily a direction of evolution. Assuming life on another planet would move in that direction is anthropomorphic.

If there was such a race, there is no reason for them to look around here, unless they are within 80 light years or so. We are in the backwater of the galaxy so to speak.

But I would say it isn't the lack of visitation, but the lack of finding radio communication that point to intelligent, technologically advanced life is rare.

The problem with Fermi's paradox is that it is asking about intelligent, technologically advanced life, not life itself.

I believe Sagan suggested that with us as an example, once a species becomes technologically advanced, maybe they destroy themselves.
He was thinking of nuclear weapons, but Global Climate change will do nicely.

[cbayer]

23. Great post and echoes some of my take on this.

The assumptions that we use when we talk about other life are all anthropomorphic and assume that what we know is true every where. That's a very, very narcissistic assumption, imo, but not surprising. When you are the top of the food chain in the only life system you are aware of, you tend to get a little arrogant.

And it is the arrogance that will lead to our demise. As we slowly but surely destroy the only planet that we know is habitable for us, we are destroying ourselves.

Speaking of whales, if you are interested in this and like a good read, check out The Swarm. It's some of the best scientifically based science fiction out there and speak directly to this issue.

[edhopper]

24. Thanks for the book rec

I'll look for that.

[cbayer]

28. Let me know if you decide to read it.

It's long but can comfortably read over a long period of time.

And it will most likely rock your perception of this earth.

[edhopper]

29. I saw

900 pages. I'll see if i can get an ibook.

[Cartoonist]

19. Before I was shut down in my Druidism thread

I was going to get to my colonization of the planets theory. Feel free to laugh.

+ Almost surely, some of these stars will have Earth-like planets. Assuming the Earth is typical, some of these planets may develop intelligent life.

Life, yes. Intelligent, maybe. Depends on the definition. Are trees intelligent? That's a topic worthy of discussion, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Considering their influence on the environment and their geological earth building abilities, trees are second only to the microbiological beings that are the embryo of life. Using these life microbes, trees have built an environment conducive to sentient beings.

How did trees come to be? If you could answer that question, then you would know the secret of life. I know we could trace their development from fossils and comparitive life forms, but where did it all begin. It is one thing to say our planet had all the building blocks neccessry to initiate life, but no one has been able to say exactly how that came about. That is what God was created for, to supply that spark.

While I can not answer that big question, I believe life was spread throughout the universe by trees. (I don't really believe it, but I like to pretend, just like theists). Seeds are capable to remain dormant for long periods of time. They don't need oxygen or water until they are ready start their reach for the Sun. Volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes, and other forces are capable of hurling seeds into space. There they may drift for eons before finally settling on barren planets to begin a new life cycle.

Are we the first planet to have trees? The only thing for certain is that trees were here before monkeys started to swing on their branches. We (humans) are not the first inhabitants of this planet.

[cbayer]

25. I think you would really enjoy Brian Cox's Wonders of Life.

He tackles the issue of origins and explains it in a way that pretty much anyone can understand. God is not necessary for that explanation.

Trees came much, much later than other forms of life. Your picture is pretty but not scientifically supported.

Love your little guy in the boat. Hope he isn't rearranging the deck chairs when you hit the big berg.

[shenmue]

20. They're broke, like the rest of us

Barely got the money to go to town for a sandwich, let alone summer on Mars.