Communication with Extraterrestrial Life

[Merlin]

I feel we aren't alone. "They" are coming back. "They" create universes and life (but not souls). And what's more, "they" have left calling cards, for a reason. And no, I can't prove it,

What data/evidence etc is there which makes you feel this way?


quote:And science shouldn't be like the industrial/millitary complex that lies and deceives,and attempts to crush non mainstream Ideas!

what are non-mainstream ideas if not either ideas which have been shown to be contrary to solid observations/experiments, or ideas that aren't sufficiently well-formed yet that they're not capable of being tested? At least, in physics, astronomy, ... etc.

Merlin replys; Scientific method is well and fine.If you allow that this wizard of OZ paradigm only accurate for the time that you happen to be living in! Can you imagine being a "Research scientist" in 3000 BC? You would be there pounding on your bronze ingot, while I was attempting to explain that It's possible to leave Earth and fly to the planets and stars without Passing through the underworld of the dead first? Science and religion isn't flawed, its the deliberate misinformation/application of both that's flawed.

Today's paradigm is wrong. Instead of accepting the MAINSTREAM ideas, (which is designed for you to use like a drug), ask questions! The world wide science paradigm is imbedded into to us from an early age, for a reason. But, alas, it is not possible to put into a sound byte. would be happy to send you some information w/o calculations. Please indicate if you want me to send the math also...whew!..now maybe I can brainstorm with the great alchemist Newton and get some feed back on the lead to gold thing...Netwon's so hung up on developing his Law of Universal Gravitation! Why doesn't he forget that insane thing?

MERLIN

 

[Sting]

The Drake equation

= (stars having planets) * (those stars having habitable conditions on at least one planet) * (those planets on which conditions lasted long enough for life to evolve) * (those planets on which life does evolve) * (those planets on which habitable conditions last long enough for intelligent life to evolve) * (those planets on which intelligent life does evolve) * (those planets on which intelligent life endures)

(taken from Astronomy: The Cosmic Journey (2nd) by Hartmann)

** Sting's note: I've seen other mathematical factors involved with the Drake Equation (the one coming to mind dealing with communication) so I'm not sure if this is just a slight deviance from the Drake Equation I read about in other textbooks and lecture notes.

 

[Nereid]

good news, bad news

Good news: the first three factors should be constrained, perhaps to an order of magnitude, within the next two or three decades.

Bad news: the fourth, fifth, and sixth factors probably hide a deep confusion or two - what is intelligence? what does it mean for intelligent life to 'endure'?

Of course, as soon as we find some other intelligent life, we'll know that 'the answer' is >= 2

 

[cragwolf]

I think that the sole utility of Drake's equation is to help us to distinguish in our minds between those factors which we are completely uncertain about and those factors which we are "orders-of-magnitude" uncertain about.

 

[Ontoplankton]

I think the first and most important consideration in whether aliens exist is the Fermi Paradox (if aliens exist, why aren't they here?), and I haven't seen any explanation better than "life is extremely improbable and therefore there are probably no intelligent aliens in the visible universe". The Drake equation leaves plenty of room for that.

 

[Steele]

Intelligence versus contact.

I don't see any validity to Fermi's Paradox (I guess then it doesn't make it a 'paradox'.

Intelligent ET life can be common. What if there is one billion intelligent E. civilizations in the Universe? The odds would be beyond comprehension if we ever learned of the existence of any of them. There could be a billion advanced intelligences and the odds are that not one of those would know of the existence of another.

A billion ETs means that just one in a hundred galaxies has an ET civilization. That's no ETs within a hundred galaxies of ourselves. And, even per chance we were lucky and that one in a hundred was in our Milky Way...there's one to two hundred billion stars in our galaxy. ETs could be be a hundred billion stars away.

Unless there's some way of 'getting around' Relativity, I just don't see how any contact is probable.

If we make it a thousand billion (trillion) intelligent civilizations..that's still a spacing of billions of stars. A trillion intelligent lifeforms is a lot ...but not a lot in a Universe thought to consist of a hundred billion or so galaxies...vast distances from each other...with each having an average of a hundred to two hundred billion stars.

Intelligent civilizations may be common. Perhaps a billion, perhaps a trillion or perhaps a hundred trillion. The vast distances of Space and the theory of Relativity almost demands that we'll always 'be alone'.

 

[Nereid]

Steele,

Extrapolation is always fraught. However, it's taken homo sap. only ~10,000 years to go from agricultural settlements to manned spaceflight. Where will we be in 10,000 years' time?

Suppose we (humanity) do seriously want to go roaming among the stars in person, and suppose we're limited to the physics we know today. Suppose it takes homo sap. in one solar system 10,000 years to establish itself in another. If the average distance between 'colonised' systems is 10 light years, then 'we' will expand in a spherical shell at a rate of ~1 light year per 1,000 years.

In less than one trip of our solar system round the Milky Way, 'we' would have completely settled just about all of the Milky Way, and the two nearest galaxies as well (the Sagittarius Dwarf and recently discovered Canis Major Dwarf).

The Sun has made ~20 trips round the Milky Way since it was formed.

Of course, our understanding of physics will advance a great deal in 10,000 years, so the above back-of-a-small-envelope calculation may well be very conservative.

Suppose we decide to 'stay at home', preferring to watch TV than travel. When will we be able to determine the highly probably existence of Earth-like planets? how far away could we detect them? Assume we set 'an atmosphere with significant free oxygen' as the marker for 'Earth-like life' on an Earth-sized planet.

Within two decades we will be able to say with some confidence whether there are such within ~50 light years (TPF - Terrestrial Planet Finder). If we work for 10,000 years, to what distance could TPF XXXIV detect Earth-like life? And after one trip round the Milky Way?

 

[Steele]

Nereid
"Extrapolation is always fraught. However, it's taken homo sap. only ~10,000 years to go from agricultural settlements to manned spaceflight. Where will we be in 10,000 years' time?"

You are correct in warning of extrapolation.

The question is also one of the physical laws of the Universe. Those early agriculturalists 10,000 years ago were subject to the same physical laws as those societies today that have manned spaceflight ...as are all intelligent civilizations in the Universe that developed technology a billion years ago. I see 'distance' and Relativity as showstoppers when it comes to potential contact with another intelligence.

Having said this, however, I hope I'm wrong. I'm a big supporter of SETI and don't see a down side to searching for life 'out there'. Perhaps life is so common that we're nothing special. Just as humans don't stop and turn over every rock or stop and study every anthill, maybe very advance civiliations couldn't be bothered with us.

 

[Ontoplankton]

Steele,

I think you're underestimating just how fast the speed of light is. The Virgo Cluster is only about 50 million light years away. At, say, half the speed of light, it would take a mere 100 million years to get from there to here.

It's possible that life is common enough that there is other intelligent life than us in the visible universe, but sparse enough that we haven't noticed it. That leaves just a few orders of magnitude of room -- it would mean life is very unlikely, but not very very unlikely (or very very very unlikely, and so on).

I'm not convinced by the Ants argument. Aliens would do something we'd have noticed either for utilitarian reasons (take Earth apart for building materials), or for humanitarian reasons (help humanity solve its problems), or even just to remove a potential threat. None of these applies to ant hills, so the analogy isn't very good.

The StarTrekian Prime Directive is not only disadvantageous to those following it; it's callous to leave people involuntarily rotting in primitivity. It's just another variant of the "everything natural is good" meme. (Among the religious, it takes the form of "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds".)

I like SETI, though, if only just so I can say "see, nothing there".

 

[Steele]

Ontoplankton,

I have no idea what a Star Trek prime directive is. Western civilization in 2003 has little more insight than an inanimate rock into the motives of an ET civilization. Even the concept is loaded. Humans have changed 'motives' several times in the last couple thousand years as to why we undertake our actions.

It's fun to speculate but we can't judge alien action on the basis of an episode of Star Trek.

Human 'motive' in the last thousand years for visiting an isolated island could be...bringing Christanity to the natives...finding a place to exile mutineers...looking for riches. ...establishing a military base...studying the natural history...establishing a Leper colony...hiding out from hostile enemies...being marooned...answering an S.O.S. signal... stopping for ship maintenance...loading up with water and food...justt some rest and recreation...etc.

An ET civilization is like a big black box into which we can put whatever characteristcs we want. It certainly won't be restrained by the 21st century motives of humans in Western civilization.

 

[Ontoplankton]

Originally posted by Steele
I have no idea what a Star Trek prime directive is.

Some weird important law that says you're not allowed to interfere with alien civilizations, something like that. From what I've seen, more of a plot device, really.

Western civilization in 2003 has little more insight than an inanimate rock into the motives of an ET civilization.

Not quite true. There are a few arguments you can make from evolutionary theory, as well as general common sense.

It's fun to speculate but we can't judge alien action on the basis of an episode of Star Trek.

I'm not doing so. That was just an illustration. And even then, I was arguing against the Startrekian scenario.

It certainly won't be restrained by the 21st century motives of humans in Western civilization.

Certainly. But it takes a pretty weird set of motives to want to keep everything exactly as it would have been. Just as examples, altruism, resource gathering and threat elimination all don't seem far-fetched.

Also, remember that you'll have to claim not even a single alien civilization would want to colonize us. It seems possible, but very unlikely.

 

[Steele]

Ontoplankton,

Those are all valid points. Sorry for misinterpreting the Star Wars analogy. I enjoy some science fiction (but not a Star Trek fan)and find it strange how our current morality always wins out at the end of the day.

My overall view of any attempt to understand aliens is to just always remind myself that it's all speculation. It's a bit like early theologians holding a conference to discuss angels. We superimpose ourselves on any discussion of aliens. We're really discussing humans as much as we are aliens. It's difficult enough to imagine human civilization in a hundred thousand years, let alone a complete other form of life that's a million or billion years removed from our technology. This just makes the subject all the more fascinating.

 

[Ontoplankton]

Originally posted by Steele
I enjoy some science fiction (but not a Star Trek fan)

(same here, actually)

and find it strange how our current morality always wins out at the end of the day.

It's important not to implicitly assume aliens are like us. But given that they would be much older than us as an intelligent species, they would probably be able to change our surroundings to what they think of as an ideal state at negligible cost. That the planet is in state X stops being an argument for keeping it in state X: the current state becomes just one of an enormous amount of possible states. To let it evolve naturally, they would probably have to consider it intrinsically valuable for nature to run its course. And I think it may be the "everything is better left to the wisdom of nature" way of thinking that's a human quirk.

I should emphasize that I'm not sure of anything, of course. But this is what clearly seems most plausible to me.

 

[Evo]

No one mentioned the "golden record" that was sent with Voyager. At that time "Whale songs" were a big thing and were included. Oh well.

Here's a link. http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/ spacecraft /goldenrec.html

 

[Adrian Baker]

Technology of an Advanced Alien nation would indeed be very hard for us to understand.

In the 1800's a prize was offered for the first person to communicate with Aliens in the Solar System - it was generally believed then that they existed. However, Mars was excluded in this as it was thought not to be enough of a challenge! One of the methods suggested (this is before Radio) was to cut out huge swathes of trees across Northern Russia, spelling out messages with trees and cleared land. The Aliens could then easily read this with a powerful telescope.

Apart from Percival Lovel's mistaken belief that he had seen Canals on Mars, ie proof of Aliens existence, it was widely believed that the planets all had life on them. One of the main reasons for this belief was that "God would not create a planet for no reason, and as Mars, Jupiter etc are there, God must have made them for other life forms"! This is the original form of the argument; we exist, space is enormous, so Aliens must exist.

I read a lot of old Astronomy books from the 1800's and the debate about Aliens hasn't changed, just our belief system, and our comprehension of technology.

Evo's note above about the 'golden Record' on Voyager made me smile - We didn't even send a digital recording!

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Adrian Baker
This is the original form of the argument; we exist, space is enormous, so Aliens must exist.

I read a lot of old Astronomy books from the 1800's and the debate about Aliens hasn't changed, just our belief system, and our comprehension of technology.

I guess we're just bored...

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

I found an interesting take on a different topic tha may be appliciable to the topic at hand.
The applicability rests on the fact that we are discussing beings of a higher mental order. ( ourselves and hopefully our ETs)

Out the mouths of babes.....
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031226.html

 

[Adrian Baker]

An interesting article...

A serious question: Does this mean that your ability to think deeply depends upon the depth and breadth of the language you learned from your parents? Can a culture with a small, or specialised vocabulary ever develop as well as one that speaks English, for example?
Would learning an Alien language as a first tongue, increase your intellectual capacity"? This is more anthropological than astronomical perhaps, but we have seen very advanced cultures on Earth meet very 'backward' ones - we could perhaps learn from those experiences.

Has there been any research on this I wonder, as it would be very relevant to this thread?