Will we ever communicate with extraterrestial life in a reasonable time frame?

[Hyku]

Can you elaborate on your responses?

Whilst my thoughts have probably been influenced by "pop-sci", my curiosity and imagination are governed by critical thinking - the father of most scientific progress.

 

[BWV]

Yes, but what are the odds that we run into one of these "similars" rather than one of the "dissimilars" that has come down through any one of the thousands or millions of alternative evolutions that produce something akin to intelligence?

Who knows? However ‘dissimilars’ have a sample size of zero and therefore are more speculative than ‘similars’

 

[phinds]

my curiosity and imagination are governed by critical thinking

You critical thinking is not helping you because you are basing your questions on misunderstandings of and lack of understanding of actual physics. As I said, study some actual physics. The best place to start would be with textbooks but you would get some good info by simply doing forum searches on the topics you mention.

For example, the idea that entanglement could lead to FTL communication is a common misconception and is debunked regularly here on PF.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, but what are the odds that we run into one of these "similars" rather than one of the "dissimilars" that has come down through any one of the thousands or millions of alternative evolutions that produce something akin to intelligence?

I don't think there's a hidden assumption much less hubris as previously stated. We can only look for what we can look for. Everybody knows this and nobody is denying or overlooking it.

We know even from looking at humans, much less other animals that our level much less type of technology is not a guarantee. Left alone, some indigenous tribes may be stable indefinitely or die out before advancing further.

But when it comes to interstellar communications, physics limits the potential options for communication. It's not a coincidence or weird chance that we use EM radiation to communicate and could have used something else, it's used because it pretty much has to be.

Does this mean we could miss pretty intelligent species (not to mention unintelligent ones) that don't develop that technology? Of course. Everyone knows this and nobody is denying it.

 

[Hyku]

Good advice.

Thanks

 

[sophiecentaur]

it seems to be based upon thin air assumptions

I'm using no assumptions at all. Any candidate self reproducing system would have to have evolved to a level something more than just eating and being eaten. Apart from the timescales of a few billion years that the stars impose we can assume nothing about the lifespans of these aliens. Any life form that could 'think' and communicate through space at frequencies well sub 1 Hz could, even now, be communicating straight past us with a similar life form. Data at that rate would just not be recognised by Seti or others. Likewise for a civilisation that used optical data rates would not be noticed. And the other way round.

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

But I really have to ask why is all this so attractive? I can only see it as an alternative to fantasy entertainment and pretty fruitless. The Earth is full of 'other' humans and we have an awful lot in common with them. Yet we spend all our time rejecting them and suspecting them of sinister motives. Why would the 'space aliens' be treated any differently?

 

[sbrothy]

We all deep down want there to be some answers to all the philosophical questions we have but, unless we want to veer into metaphysics, there are no answers forthcoming in our lifetimes. It s…. but thats how it looks.

EDIT: And it annoys me to no end.

 

[russ_watters]

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

Most I agree with and is logical (not really assumption), but I don't agree with that one. Yes, evolution creates unpredictable change, but:

a) the timescales can vary greatly.

b) we've been partially controlling evolution for thousands of years and may aquire the ability to control it completely with genetic engineering.

 

[sophiecentaur]

. Left alone, some indigenous tribes may be stable indefinitely

Evidence is that low tech tends to preserve life - or is it low mobility and low populations? But we are where we are; we like our comforts, medicines and anaesthetics so there's no (voluntary) way back for us. A faustian contract, I think.

we've been partially controlling evolution for thousands of years

hm. I don't see much 'control'. We've been on a slippery slope since we left the forests. And thousands of years is not very long.

 

[sophiecentaur]

We all deep down want there to be some answers to all the philosophical questions we have but, unless we want to veer into metaphysics, there are no answers forthcoming in our lifetimes. It s…. but thats how it looks.

EDIT: And it annoys me to no end.

You are making a huge assumption here about ‘people’. Many people are more interested in football results.
Personally, I am a pretty staunch atheist. I look for no answers to (as I see it) irrelevant questions.
I’m afraid you are destined to be annoyed for a long time.

 

[sbrothy]

You are making a huge assumption here about ‘people’. Many people are more interested in football results.
Personally, I am a pretty staunch atheist. I look for no answers to (as I see it) irrelevant questions.
I’m afraid you are destined to be annoyed for a long time.

Possibly. But I’m ready to discount “people” who are only interested in sports. Then again, who says you can’t be a sports-geek and interested in say, astronomy?

(I’m playing a little devil’s advocate here as I’m not interested in sports but experience tells me it’s downright dangerous to assume you’re the smartest person in the room. Or indeed to assume anything about other people at all :). )

But yeah. Thats what i meant with “our lifetimes”.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't see much 'control'

It wasn't until genetic sequencing that we knew what the wild ancestors of the chicken or corn (maize) even were.

 

[russ_watters]

Evidence is that low tech tends to preserve life - or is it low mobility and low populations? But we are where we are; we like our comforts, medicines and anaesthetics so there's no (voluntary) way back for us. A faustian contract, I think.

Many tribes have been uninterested in such things. I'm not talking percentages or drivers, I'm just pointing out that alternatives to endless technological advancement are observed to exist in some cultures.

hm. I don't see much 'control'. We've been on a slippery slope since we left the forests.

As @Vanadium 50 correctly indicated, I'm referring to our history of extreme manipulation of evolution of the plants and animals we cultivate/eat (or are pretty). This has the potential to not only steer evolution, but stop it. All of the bananas we eat are clones, for example, and soon we are likely to be cloning livestock. I'm not sure about how it works for most GM foods though, if the seeds farmers buy are identical every year or not....

We are starting to genetically engineer certain limited human features, and I expect in my lifetime the much more direct editing in sci-fi will become reality. The potential also already exists via IVF and genetic sequencing to actively select traits from a collection of embryos. We don't yet exercise all the control we are already capable of, but the potential level of control appears extreme. There's a species of research mice, for example, that were selectively inbred to essentially all be clones.

And I subscribe to the theory that if something is possible, given enough chances, someone is probably doing it (by which I mean alien civilizations). So it seems quite possible for a species to remain stable or evolve in a directed and beneficial way. So your characterization of evolution as causing species to be unstable is not necessarily true.

Nor, for that matter, would a civilization necessarily end because a species "burned itself out". I guess it's possible, but most evolution is continuous and connected, so you'd have new species supplanting old ones with no loss of continuity. Heck, most evolution including human evolution shows us that. There's a reason it's drawn as a tree. And to put a finer point on it: we know the early species of and precursors to humans coexisted, intermingled and cross-bred. The fact that their branches died off does not negate the fact that ours can be traced back to them, unbroken.

And thousands of years is not very long.

You specified the timeframe, it just happened to match my point too. But we've also seen animals with little or no evolution over periods in excess of a hundred million years, such as some species of sharks.

 

[Vanadium 50]

To be fair, we only know that shark morphology hasn't changed much. Biochemistry might be different - perhaps immunity to the "shark flu".

 

[Frimus]

I see the problem discussed here from a different angle. Instead of asking why the others are not here when we are here, I would ask: Why are we here when the others are not here? Could it be that advanced civilizations in Universe don't last long enough to leave visible traces?

 

[ShadowKraz]

I'm using no assumptions at all. Any candidate self reproducing system would have to have evolved to a level something more than just eating and being eaten. Apart from the timescales of a few billion years that the stars impose we can assume nothing about the lifespans of these aliens. Any life form that could 'think' and communicate through space at frequencies well sub 1 Hz could, even now, be communicating straight past us with a similar life form. Data at that rate would just not be recognised by Seti or others. Likewise for a civilisation that used optical data rates would not be noticed. And the other way round.

Evolution means instability (in our experience) so we could easily assume time spans of very few thousands of. years before a successful organism to burn itself out.

But I really have to ask why is all this so attractive? I can only see it as an alternative to fantasy entertainment and pretty fruitless. The Earth is full of 'other' humans and we have an awful lot in common with them. Yet we spend all our time rejecting them and suspecting them of sinister motives. Why would the 'space aliens' be treated any differently?

I agree that an intelligent extraterrestrial species would most likely be rejected, unless they were definitely much better at applying their technologies to mass violence than we are. But this is due to the fact that our species is not centered around its higher cognitive abilities but around its baser instincts. Which should be expected given that our species is relatively new and has not had time to 'grow up'.

I still disagree that an intelligent extraterrestrial species that is quite different and our own species would have little if anything that could interest the other. While that may be possible, it is not a foregone conclusion because we don't have the knowledge. It is, I think, even more likely that we would have a lot that would interest each other. Analogy time.
One of the major factors guiding my choice of college courses was the ratio of lecture to discussion time. I generally rejected courses with high lecture to low discussion because I was interested in how others thought; I wanted the differing viewpoints as they frequently stimulated my own thinking on lines I had either not considered or rejected due to, well, not considering factors they had picked up on.

Is our species, as a species, so filled with hubris as to reject the possibility we could learn from a very different intelligent species? There is no useless knowledge other than the knowledge you don't possess. They possess knowledge we don't and vice versa. Why throw away the chance?

 

[Davephaelon]

According to the article below in Phys.org, an average of 7 Interstellar Objects (ISO's) pass through our solar system every year, and that we might be ready to intercept and examine one such as Oumuamua the next time such an object transits our neighborhood. Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization, as he writes in the article linked below.

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-oumuamua-ready-interstellar-explorer.html

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Loeb_Astrobiology.pdf

 

[pinball1970]

According to the article below in Phys.org, an average of 7 Interstellar Objects (ISO's) pass through our solar system every year, and that we might be ready to intercept and examine one such as Oumuamua the next time such an object transits our neighborhood. Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization, as he writes in the article linked below.

https://phys.org/news/2024-03-oumuamua-ready-interstellar-explorer.html

https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/Loeb_Astrobiology.pdf

Avi Loeb is a little bit out there.

 

[gmax137]

out there

I saw what you did...

 

[sophiecentaur]

But we've also seen animals with little or no evolution over periods in excess of a hundred million years, such as some species of sharks.

This is true but the development of civilisation with technology is a very different matter.

 

[Davephaelon]

Avi Loeb is a little bit out there.

Admittedly that is the public perception. But I like his boldness, tempered by a disciplined scientific approach. In many ways he reminds me of another astronomer - Dr. J. Allen Hynek - who served as the scientific consultant for Project Blue Book, on a subject unfortunately associated with the loony fringe. Dr. Hynek ultimately became very critical of that Air Force project. I wrote to him in the early 70's and was thrilled to receive a letter in response (just wish I could find it!). Another scientist, back in those days, that I greatly admired was Dr. James E. McDonald: "a senior physicist at the Institute for Atmospheric Physics and a professor of meteorology at the University of Arizona in Tuscon" (Wiki page). He favored the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

I remember how discouraged I was back about 1966 when I looked into the incredible difficulties of humanity ever traveling to other solar systems. But when Miguel Alcubierre came up with his warp drive concept in the 90's it seemed like the prospect for humanity traveling to the stars in reasonable time periods was perhaps not entirely impossible. But that fizzled with more rigorous analysis by other scientists - Pfenning, Ford, Broeck, if memory serves.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Is our species, as a species, so filled with hubris as to reject the possibility we could learn from a very different intelligent species? There is no useless knowledge other than the knowledge you don't possess. They possess knowledge we don't and vice versa. Why throw away the chance?

Throw away what chance? You talk as if this sort of project would take up no resources. It's a bit like "you've got to be in it to win it", which is the way Lottery tickets are sold. And we actually know the probability involved in a lottery.( I am totally shocked, btw, at the total amount of money spent in the UK by the national lottery.) You are suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitessimally smaller chance of 'winning'. Who pays???

Avi Loeb of Harvard even speculated that Oumuamua might have been an artificial craft from another civilization

Speculations like that don't impress me. It's along the lines of biblical and koranic statements but with a lot less 'authority' and it shows a huge indication of lack of discipline, imo. That sort of message is blatantly seeking publicity for the article and his book sales and supplies nothing to the real argument.

Remember Eric Von Daniken? He had me fooled when I was 14. He got me believeing that my Physics Master was from Venus!!!!!

 

[Davephaelon]

Speculations like that don't impress me. It's along the lines of biblical and koranic statements but with a lot less 'authority' and it shows a huge indication of lack of discipline, imo. That sort of message is blatantly seeking publicity for the article and his book sales and supplies nothing to the real argument.

Actually, his speculation is based on empirical data. For example the last paragraph on page 2 of the link to his pdf above states:

"These were just the initial anomalies that made `Oumuamua different from all the comets and asteroids that we had seen before in the Solar system. As it tumbled every eight hours(see Figure 4), the brightness of sunlight reflected from it changed by a factor of ten. This meant that it has an extreme shape, which at the ~90% confidence level was disk-like (Mashchenko, 2019). The Spitzer Space Telescope did not detect any carbon-based molecules or dust around `Oumuamua, setting a tight limit on ordinary cometary activity (Trilling et al., 2018). The lack of heat, detectable in the infrared, placed an upper limit of about 200 meters on its size, the scale of a football field. But most remarkably, `Oumuamua exhibited an excess push away from the Sun which would have required it to lose ~10% of its mass if it was caused by the rocket effect from normal cometary evaporation (Micheli et al., 2018). An extensive evaporation of this magnitude was absolutely ruled out by the Spitzer telescope data; moreover, the repulsive force declined smoothly with distance from the Sun, showing no change in spin or sudden kicks as routinely observed from localized jets on the surface of comets (Rafikov, 2018). Finally, there was no apparent cut-off in the push at the distance beyond which evaporation of water ice by the heating of sunlight is expected to stop (see Figure 5)."

His paper is well worth a read. Among many other things he points out that there were similarities between the dynamical behavior of Oumuamua and 2020 SO, a remnant of a NASA spacecraft launched in 1966. This is brought up in the abstract: "`Oumuamua’s anomalies suggest that it might have been a thin craft - with a large area per unit mass - pushed by the reflection of sunlight; sharing qualities with the thin artifact 2020 SO - launched by NASA in 1966 and discovered by Pan STARRS in 2020 to exhibit a push away from the Sun with no cometary tail". He also points out significant problems with various proposed natural origins for Oumuamua.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Throw away what chance? You talk as if this sort of project would take up no resources. It's a bit like "you've got to be in it to win it", which is the way Lottery tickets are sold. And we actually know the probability involved in a lottery.( I am totally shocked, btw, at the total amount of money spent in the UK by the national lottery.) You are suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitessimally smaller chance of 'winning'. Who pays???

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

 

[pinball1970]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

There is SETI, satellites, ground and orbit telescopes. Ok, only SETI to my knowledge is "looking" specifically but all the other kit could pick up something. Webb for instance cost 10 billion and interesting planets is on the hit list.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay

Your average mission costs $1B which may or may not seem massive. What sort of project would you be thinking of? JWST was about $10B. That would correspond to very good value for money because the data it produces is much more than a yes / no answer. However, JWST doesn't look for low entropy signals. It has its feet firmly on the ground (in a manner of speaking) and the returns on investment have been increasing on a daily basis.

You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions.

I have evidence that, so far we have received no signals. You have no evidence of signals - just faith that they are going to arrive some day.

In terms of value for money, how much of your income would you be prepared, personally, to spend on an as-yet unspecified project? Would that amount (scaled up) be representative of other peoples' contributions (taxes) who have basically been paying for Entertainment and the esoteric enjoyment of seeing rich tourists burn up millions of their dollars?

 

[gmax137]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research.

I don't see it that way.

We have finite resources, hence we need to prioritize our choices.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

Look up “straw man” as a form of argument.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Look up “straw man” as a form of argument.

Tit for tat, I suppose.

 

[ShadowKraz]

Your average mission costs $1B which may or may not seem massive. What sort of project would you be thinking of? JWST was about $10B. That would correspond to very good value for money because the data it produces is much more than a yes / no answer. However, JWST doesn't look for low entropy signals. It has its feet firmly on the ground (in a manner of speaking) and the returns on investment have been increasing on a daily basis.

I have evidence that, so far we have received no signals. You have no evidence of signals - just faith that they are going to arrive some day.

In terms of value for money, how much of your income would you be prepared, personally, to spend on an as-yet unspecified project? Would that amount (scaled up) be representative of other peoples' contributions (taxes) who have basically been paying for Entertainment and the esoteric enjoyment of seeing rich tourists burn up millions of their dollars?

Again, you are misrepresenting my thoughts with your unfounded assumptions. I do not have faith that they are going to arrive some day. None. I do hope that we will receive indication of life elsewhere in this galaxy but I'm not so stupid as to think it MUST exist. As I will not engage with you on this again, you can make another unfounded assumption; you won.

 

[DennisN]

Remember Eric Von Daniken? He had me fooled when I was 14.

Even though it's really painful (truly, ) to write this I have to admit that I got fooled by Däniken too when I was young.

We do silly things when we're young. Some start to smoke, some drink, some start to steal.
My shame is having read Däniken.

There, I've said it.
Ah, I feel so much better now.

You youngsters, listen to wisdom from an older man:
Don't drink, smoke or steal. And stay away from Däniken.

 

[DennisN]

Avi Loeb is a little bit out there.

Further out than Oumuamua?

 

[pinball1970]

That sort of reasoning argues against spending ANY money/resources on ANY scientific research. And don't misrepresent me hoping I'll cave and give you a win; I am NOT suggesting a massive outlay with an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning simply because I'm not making a thin air assumption that the outlay MUST be massive or that there is an infinitesimally smaller chance of winning. You have exactly zero to back up your assumptions. What I have is the fact that spending on science has ALWAYS paid off; even if it took a long time or produced negative results, it has always paid off. I repeat, the only useless knowledge is the knowledge you don't have.

I did not mention Kepler Launched 2009.

That was looking for earth type planets and star systems. https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/n...rs-first-earth-size-planet-in-habitable-zone/

It is now decommissioned.

JWST has already been mentioned that is collecting data right now on exoplanets as part of its mission. Launched 2021

SETI already mentioned (first funded in the 1970s by NASA according to wiki) and I would check out the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Listen 2016

Recently there was an interview with a youtuber and the Director of astronomy, regarding the habitable worlds Observatory https://cor.gsfc.nasa.gov/studies/habitable-worlds/hwo.php

Interview here

 

[sophiecentaur]

I did not mention Kepler Launched 2009.

That was looking for earth type planets and star systems.

IS this thread discussing the quest for life forms or the quest for advanced civilisations? I would not be surprised if some life forms were discovered within a decade or so but that is many orders of magnitude from chatty little green men.

 

[sbrothy]

Even though it's really painful (truly, ) to write this I have to admit that I got fooled by Däniken too when I was young.

We do silly things when we're young. Some start to smoke, some drink, some start to steal.
My shame is having read Däniken.

There, I've said it.
Ah, I feel so much better now.

You youngsters, listen to wisdom from an older man:
Don't drink, smoke or steal. And stay away from Däniken.

What's even worse is that I like a few programs on History Channel ("Forged in Fire" for instance) but suddenly up comes this "Ancient Astronauts" series which actually gives the man screentime!!

"Ancient astronaut theoriticians say Yes!"

NO! Just no! Get out of of my TV! :P


And if you really want wisdom:

Stay away from relationships, upbringing (includes pets) and drug-related debts. No matter how good your intentions are they are fights you can't win and should stay away from.

Noone wants advise on how to bring up your own child for instance.

EDIT: I'm tempted sometimes though. I've seen several examples of people learning their children to run in traffic(!). In my opinion, if you need to run in traffic something already went wrong. You need to make eyecontact and be predictable to other people. But per my own "words of wisdom" above I just keep it inside.