Astronomy / Space THIS and THAT... are we alone?

[Zak Gordon]

Fermi Paradox:

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

That covers most of the ground, and a lot of it is very complex stuff like just how likely our own existence (intelligent humanity) is vs all the trails and disasters we had to survive to get here on our own planet. It would seem likely that our galaxy is less like the Star Wars Cantina scene than it might be.

Everything from the Rare Earth Hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

To the Great Filter:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter

ALL no doubt play some part in why we are not all denizens of the aforementioned Star Wars Cantina scene in our own galaxy.

Space is big, really big, and there are so many hurdles in place it sort of makes you wish we all appreciated our lives that much more than we appear too (and what a 'gift' it is to ponder these awesome questions!). Currently the odds are firmly staked against us ever surviving long enough to find out about all the other life that no doubt exists around us in our own galaxy.

My money is on human induced climate change destroying our civilization, but there are plenty of other 'gotcha's' just around the corner in our future if we survive the next few hundred years, and stuff like Fusion power and FTL are way further down our potential timeline than that.

Edit:

Now having said all that (and if needed, digested all the info in those links) there is cool stuff happening right now like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voRC5ImEMH4

(a great channel btw) So maybe we are right on the cusp of discovering intelligent life all around us?

 

[Sapyx]

Re: the Fermi paradox.

Arguing "where is everyone" is largely futile, given that we don't actually know what an inhabited galaxy would look like, or how it would differ from an uninhabited galaxy. I've always imagined us standing here on our primitive planet looking up and saying "our galaxy looks uninhabited" as being something like taking a stereotypical pre-Columbian Great Plains Native American, bringing them forward in time to today, standing them up on the hills overlooking Los Angeles, and asking them to guess how many people live down there in that valley. After careful observation, our time-travelling native would probably declare that "nobody lives there", because if people lived there, then he'd see their tents and smoke signals.

On the other hand, those who argue that the galaxy must be full of life, based on statistical probability, are missing an important point: statistics do not create certainty. It would be just as ludicrous to argue with a lottery winner that they can't possibly be the real lottery winner, because the odds against being a lottery winner are extremely small. The point with a lottery is, somebody has to be the winner, and each ticket-holder is equally likely to be that winner. Likewise, somewhere out there in the galaxy, some race has to be "the first intelligent race in existence". That race is just as likely to be our own as anybody else's. And until we know how many tickets have been sold, we really can't know anything about the likelihood of being that winner.

The third point to ponder is the final term of the Drake Equation: the "lifetime" if a sentient species. The term isn't really asking to measure the actual lifetime of the species existence, just the lifetime that the species will have a detectable civilization. Because we don't really know what the future holds: there may come a point in every advanced civilization's existence where they question the whole "gotta expand and fill up the whole universe" philosophy, and decide not to do that.

 

[Stigbob]

To go back to the FTL will never be a thing as our current view says its impossible, in the 60's microbiology was widely regarded as a dead subject unworthy of further study because of vaccines and antibiotics.

Then along come aids and antibiotic resistant infections. The consensus at that time was wrong.

 

[Morbad]

there may come a point in every advanced civilization's existence where they question the whole "gotta expand and fill up the whole universe" philosophy, and decide not to do that.

Orgasm machines and good VR is that point.

Somewhere, deep below the martian surface, is the first intelligent civilization to arise in out solar system...they've just uploaded themselves to giant orgy matrix because in their ancient wisdom they have come to the conclusion that bustin' is the be all and end all of enlightenment. Yes, they could have bred indefinitely and wandered off in search of new life and new civilizations to squabble over, but they weighed that option against a billion years of ecstasy for each and every individual and figured the latter was better.

That's my guess anyway.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

We’re probably going to keep going in circles, but I’m on break at work, so...

If by 'going around in circles' you mean me not agreeing with your uber-optimistic predictions, then yes, that is likely to be the outcome. Thanks though for sparing your break time to educate me, lol.

I will of course concede that given sufficient technological progress (over whatever time scales you like), marvels like fusion rockets, asteroid mining and construction of rotating outer space habitats could be seen as real possibilities. Let's just say that at the present time, that is a very long way off indeed. My personal view is that we are very unlikely to get that far, because the existential problems we face as a species will simply not allow us to. I'm sorry, I simply prefer a sceptical, more realistic way of thinking to yours. Do entertain the notion that the views of others may have worth, even if they do not exactly coincide with your own. Much of your argument is based on mere supposition, the seductive but untrue proposition that such wonders are inevitable.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

To go back to the FTL will never be a thing as our current view says its impossible, in the 60's microbiology was widely regarded as a dead subject unworthy of further study because of vaccines and antibiotics.

Then along come aids and antibiotic resistant infections. The consensus at that time was wrong.

You are I think 'reasoning by analogy'. Sorry, it doesn't work. I am not myself a scientist, let alone someone who could even explain the Einstein universe to any degree of clarity. But this I know: there is no fudging on this point, Einstein is correct that FTL is impossible and there is no way to cheat that. the theory is solid and totally reliable. I know it's hard to accept because we humans are always like, 'we flew to the moon! Once considered impossible, so there!'

The universe revealed by Einstein is not like that. It does not require 'concensus'.

Unfortunately there are in fact things we will never be able to do, except in imagination of course.

 

[Darkfyre99]

If by 'going around in circles' you mean me not agreeing with your uber-optimistic predictions, then yes, that is likely to be the outcome. Thanks though for sparing your break time to educate me, lol.

I will of course concede that given sufficient technological progress (over whatever time scales you like), marvels like fusion rockets, asteroid mining and construction of rotating outer space habitats could be seen as real possibilities. Let's just say that at the present time, that is a very long way off indeed. My personal view is that we are very unlikely to get that far, because the existential problems we face as a species will simply not allow us to. I'm sorry, I simply prefer a sceptical, more realistic way of thinking to yours. Do entertain the notion that the views of others may have worth, even if they do not exactly coincide with your own. Much of your argument is based on mere supposition, the seductive but untrue proposition that such wonders are inevitable.

Somewhere along the line, we went from "are Dyson Swarms technically possible" as it relates to the Fermi paradox, to the existential crisis of humanity. Totally different subjects.

I was speaking about the former using humanity as a baseline for what is currently possible... since we're the only technological species we know about. If we're to apply the mediocrity principle, we'd be a fairly typical one. There is nothing technical from stopping humanity from building a Dyson Swarm using current technology. We've overcome the only true hurdle for doing so: getting into orbit in the first place. Everything else is just a matter of shifting mass around the system.

If we are a fairly typical example of a technological species, and if the planet Earth is a fairly typical example of world in the habitable zone of stars like our sun, then we should be seeing evidence of Dyson Swarms, either in our own galaxy, or in nearby galaxies. There are none, so where are they?

Possibility #1 is that technological species inevitably destroy themselves before they reach that stage. We've come close a few times ourselves, and we're facing another existential crisis right now.

Possibility #2 is the Rare Earth hypothesis: the notion that the Earth is somehow special.

I favor possibility #3: that the Universe is finally entering the less lethal-to-life phase of its existence, and that's why we don't see any evidence in far away galaxies. Of course, less lethal doesn't mean non-lethal. Any potentially technological life in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies have another four billion years to get off their planets to maximize their chances of surviving the inevitable flair of gamma ray bursts, active supermassive black holes, and other nastiness caused their collision.

 

[Auronio]

Personally I do not rule out that any (more/way more/...) intelligent species than ours is/was/will be existing.

I'm afraid

• the mentioned idea we simply don't coincide in point of time
• even if we coincided the enormous distances - also for signals - rule out we see/detect anything
• what we see/detect NOW is history - ten thousands/hundred thousands/million years back in time
• we assume others would communicate/behave some way similar to us, cause we simply can't imagine other ways which are beyond our experience
• ...

The nice thing about discussions like this - they never turn old and you can discuss endlessly without ever coming to a reasonable end.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

The nice thing about discussions like this - they never turn old and you can discuss endlessly without ever coming to a reasonable end.

That's a blessing and a curse, because it's just like those "ancient aliens" shows, which leave you with more questions than answers.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

Somewhere along the line, we went from "are Dyson Swarms technically possible" as it relates to the Fermi paradox, to the existential crisis of humanity. Totally different subjects.

I was speaking about the former using humanity as a baseline for what is currently possible... since we're the only technological species we know about. If we're to apply the mediocrity principle, we'd be a fairly typical one. There is nothing technical from stopping humanity from building a Dyson Swarm using current technology. We've overcome the only true hurdle for doing so: getting into orbit in the first place. Everything else is just a matter of shifting mass around the system.

If we are a fairly typical example of a technological species, and if the planet Earth is a fairly typical example of world in the habitable zone of stars like our sun, then we should be seeing evidence of Dyson Swarms, either in our own galaxy, or in nearby galaxies. There are none, so where are they?

Possibility #1 is that technological species inevitably destroy themselves before they reach that stage. We've come close a few times ourselves, and we're facing another existential crisis right now.

Possibility #2 is the Rare Earth hypothesis: the notion that the Earth is somehow special.

I favor possibility #3: that the Universe is finally entering the less lethal-to-life phase of its existence, and that's why we don't see any evidence in far away galaxies. Of course, less lethal doesn't mean non-lethal. Any potentially technological life in the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies have another four billion years to get off their planets to maximize their chances of surviving the inevitable flair of gamma ray bursts, active supermassive black holes, and other nastiness caused their collision.

I always imagined the coming collision of our galaxy and Andromeda to be a slow and stately affair, more like the merging of two little clouds of smoke than a train crash! *chuckle*
In any case I really think we have more urgent concerns.

Anyways, thanks for your post. Like I said, I do find your passion and optimism admirable, exciting even. I still think there are a myriad of good reasons to say we're not even technically able yet to even consider creating 'Dyson swarms'. Yes, we have rockets that allow us to launch carefully calculated payloads into orbit, a process that is still phenomenally difficult and expensive. You talk of 'shifting mass around the system' as if it's as easy as removing make-up. The simple truth is that we have barely begun to comprehend the challenges involved in making humanity a truly space-faring species. What I see is a world, a civilization in deep crisis, confronting problems that unless we solve SOON, will almost certainly give us the simplest solution to the paradox, that scientific progress is toxic and self-destructive, that species that develop technology are damaged and inevitably destroyed by it. The clock is ticking.

What's so great about discovery? It's a violent, penetrative act that scars what it explores. What you call discovery, I call the r*pe of the natural world.
Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

 

[Darkfyre99]

That's a blessing and a curse, because it's just like those "ancient aliens" shows, which leave you with more questions than answers.

Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always felt those “ancient aliens” shows could be summed up as, “Ancient Humans were idiots, therefore aliens did it.”

 

[TimWellens]

Life is like bacteria: it all started when a single membrane cell started duplicating itself millions of years ago,life started!
Now millions of evolutionary years later Sol has produced a species that is smart enough to leave the main cell (Earth) to ‘invade’ nearby cells like the Moon or Mars.In a few hundred years we will spread like bacteria to these neighbouring cells and naturally the next step will be to invade even more cells (closest galaxies).
I believe the same system counts for other lifeforms on distant planets.Some will fail and some will succeed.
They question is if our DNA is smart enough not to destroy itself,and if our and their evolution will ever overlap in time and if we both have the technologies needed to communicate with each other.

Sorry English not my main language and typing on iPhone

 

[Darkfyre99]

I always imagined the coming collision of our galaxy and Andromeda to be a slow and stately affair, more like the merging of two little clouds of smoke than a train crash! *chuckle*
In any case I really think we have more urgent concerns.

My understanding is that nearby star formation (or more accurately, the death throws of massive and short lived stars that spawn within them) tends to be dangerous to life as we know it, and that galaxy collisions are what drive star formation these days. While star systems themselves have little to fear from the collision, the newly created galaxy is likely to see a burst of new star formation a hundred times greater than what we see today.

 

[Stigbob]

You are I think 'reasoning by analogy'. Sorry, it doesn't work. I am not myself a scientist, let alone someone who could even explain the Einstein universe to any degree of clarity. But this I know: there is no fudging on this point, Einstein is correct that FTL is impossible and there is no way to cheat that. the theory is solid and totally reliable. I know it's hard to accept because we humans are always like, 'we flew to the moon! Once considered impossible, so there!'

The universe revealed by Einstein is not like that. It does not require 'concensus'.

Unfortunately there are in fact things we will never be able to do, except in imagination of course.

The only thing you've said I agree with is that you are not a scientist.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

The only thing you've said I agree with is that you are not a scientist.

Oh well... er, great. Thanks for a great conversation.
I am sure you will find however, that the view I expressed is in fact typical for any one able to comprehend Einstein's ideas and their central importance in astrophysics. I look forward to your comprehensive refutation of the theory of relativity.

 

[Auronio]

Don't wanna anticipate Stigbob's answer but I understood he meant that even though Einstein's understanding of our universe and his theories currently is unrefuted we (human mankind) might find other theories in future which would allow development of technology allowing FTL travel.

I am a scientist and I know science is changing/adapting theories constantly.

100 years ago nobody would have believed mankind could ever develop something such powerful like today's computers let alone they would become a commonplace tool.
And we start already developing next generation technology based on quantum mechanics.

Max Planck said

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

But I agree that during our lifetimes it's very unlikely we will colonize our own solar system let alone any new one.

 

[Stigbob]

Oh well... er, great. Thanks for a great conversation.
I am sure you will find however, that the view I expressed is in fact typical for any one able to comprehend Einstein's ideas and their central importance in astrophysics. I look forward to your comprehensive refutation of the theory of relativity.

I don't bother to argue with other peoples dogma.

 

[Stigbob]

Don't wanna anticipate Stigbob's answer but I understood he meant that even though Einstein's understanding of our universe and his theories currently is unrefuted we (human mankind) might find other theories in future which would allow development of technology allowing FTL travel.

I am a scientist and I know science is changing/adapting theories constantly.

100 years ago nobody would have believed mankind could ever develop something such powerful like today's computers let alone they would become a commonplace tool.
And we start already developing next generation technology based on quantum mechanics.

Max Planck said

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

But I agree that during our lifetimes it's very unlikely we will colonize our own solar system let alone any new one.

That's far better than I could have put it. Rep for you.

 

[S3B4ST13N]

You are I think 'reasoning by analogy'. Sorry, it doesn't work. I am not myself a scientist, let alone someone who could even explain the Einstein universe to any degree of clarity. But this I know: there is no fudging on this point, Einstein is correct that FTL is impossible and there is no way to cheat that. the theory is solid and totally reliable. I know it's hard to accept....

Or as reliable as it can be when it's presented by a 200,000 year old species with less than 500 years worth of scientific knowledge of a 13.8 billion year old universe.

 

[Zoltah-Talion]

I don't bother to argue with other peoples dogma.

Dogma. Just checked the definition. "A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." Isn't it usually applied to religion and/or politics? If you think it applies to Einstein's great achievements your understanding of science must be lacking. Anyways, whatever man.