A Conversation for Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Peer Review: A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 1

Two7Right

Entry: Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested - A9320032
Author: Two7Right - U969606

As science advances in leaps and bounds the in-built instinct to explore moves us naturally enough to look outwards into this galaxy and beyond.

To this end it is essential to encourage forward thinking towards the discovery of life in all its forms on other worlds. Common sense alone tells us we cannot be the only sentient beings in such a mind numbingly vast universe.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 2

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

Brilliant, thank you. What branch of astrophysics are you most interested in?smiley - smiley

Annie
smiley - planet


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 3

Not him

Looks good to me, but rather lacking in formatting - did you use guideML?

Which billion did you use?

You shouldn't sign this: you'll be credited at the side.

The note at the top is unnecessary: readers will understand.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 4

Two7Right

Thanks. I'm not a scientist but have an interest in all astro-related things to do with space, time, the universe in general and how it ticks.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 5

Two7Right

Yes, it does need formatting. I used GOO for the skin. Took Guide's advice and used plain text 'cos I'm not au fait with the niceties of GuideML as yet.

Used SETI billions.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 6

Skankyrich [?]

Yes, if you're not sure about GuideML it's better to leave it alone in plain text and let your friendly sub do it smiley - ok


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 7

FordsTowel

Hey there, 27R!

As good as this is looking, I find that it does leave a lot of room for questions - most especially surrounding the definitions of the terms it contains.

The most basic, might be "what do we mean by planet?" and "What do we mean by communicates?".

On "planet", our very own solar system retains planets that are smaller than moons of other planets. Jupiter is almost large enough of a gas giant to collapse into a new sun/star. What shall constitute a "Planet"?

On "communicates", the only Earth-transmitted messages have been radio, television, micro-wave, laser, and the odd space capsule pot-shot. Other advanced races, receiving these signals, may be entirely incapable of guessing how to filter and decipher these communiques. Look at how much trouble we had deciphering thousands of Egyptian hieroglyphs before the discovery of the Rosetta Stone.

Other technologies might seem just as meaningless to us. There is no viable reason, we have, for assuming that we have not been exposed to "alien" transmissions. The question is, have we understood anything as a transmitted communication.

We must also keep in mind that "how long" the planet sent communications is only important if they did it in the time-frame where we would be receptive to them. If the signals were sent tomorrow, and they won't arrive for 100,000 years, we're out of luck; likewise if they last arrived 500 years ago.

Many, many variables, and not a clue what works.

BTW: only gas giants have been discovered because their the big guys. None of them is actually likely to develop life, but they're all we can see.

I'm not sure if I like the Fraction of Stars retaining planets. I suspect that almost all have developed or captured planets just because of the mechanism through which the stars are formed. Seems unlikely that many would not have any planet.

All just food for thought.

smiley - towel


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 8

Two7Right

Hi FordsTowel. Nice handle!

A few thoughts on your thoughts.

Planet. I think in this context anything above asteroid size capable of retaining an atmosphere is a pretty good contender although other rocks without an atmosphere or life are of great interest to the scientists..

Commmunicate. It is known that transmissions such as our own radio, tv and the like from ultra long to ultra high frequencies would be too weak and almost undectable at very long distances and we would have similar difficulties receiving. However, microwave transmissions such as radar and beyond stand a good chance of being spotted and SETI listens across millions of very high frequencies. So, searching is not so much confined to listening for a purpose beamed 'message' but to eavesdrop on what might be, say, domestic transmissions in those areas. These, right up into the hydrogen level, the (I think) most common element in the universe. Example - base frequency currently on my crunching schedule is 1.421103516 Ghz.

You are right in that the transmissions of other technologies might be meaningless to us. But, if we don't know what they are and we don't know they are there we can't hope to detect or understand them. All we can do us use what we have, keep developing and keep trying.

The length of time a planet is capable of communicating coupled to when they radiated their signals is valid and yes, we could miss them. Distance, size and age of the universe, time etc. There is not much we can do about that. It should be remembered however that any entities capable of generating transmissions are not likely to just emit them once, it will be an ongoing process just like ourselves. Then of course it is down to the length of time these guys exist. And of course, us.

Detected so far - mostly gas giants but there are other solid bodies that have been found and the technology coming on stream in the near future is designed to detect even more.

Yes, lots of food for thought and too many variables for one entry but at least it might get people to think about the subject more. Will bear in mind.

Thanks,

27R


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 9

DaveBlackeye

Nice smiley - ok

It's worth noting that we don't deliberately direct all our domestic transmisions into space. To do so is extremely inefficient, so as technology improves radio transmissions become more information-efficient, more directional, lower power, and much less likely to leak into space. A good example is a communications satellite with line-of-sight microwave links directly to the ground, carrying low power, highly compressed and error-coded multiplexed digital signals. Compare this with the huge ground-based high-power omni-directional HF analogue transmitters that did a similar job 30 years ago.

It clearly follows that any alien race would follow the same path, so there may only be a few years in their entire civilisation between inventing radio communications and the signals becoming undetectable. Some say this is why we haven't detected anything yet.

You should also be aware that NASA's Terrestrial Planet Finder has just been shelved so that Bush can pursue his crusade to impose democracy on the Moon and Mars smiley - grr

http://www.planetary.org/about/press/releases/2006/0206_Planetary_Society_Charges.html


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 10

FordsTowel

Thanks for the compliment, 27R (may I call you 27?)

Your definition of planet - anything above asteroid size capable of retaining an atmosphere - works must fine for me. I presume you will put this in the entry, just for context.

Yes, our stuff has been pretty weak (although the 60s shows seemed powerful enough for the Thurmians to capture our "historical documents" and recreate the NSEA Protector).

I also agree that specific messages are not likely to be our "proof" that alien intelligences exist. We feel that we can pretty much tell regular, natural signals, and erratic, random signals from "significant" signals (not that we've proven that ability as of yet).

!! 1.421103516 Ghz? Freeeoooowwwwww!!!!

The only region I mentioned the cosmologically limiting overlaps in technology was to add to the number of variables in the formula. Sceptics point to non-contact as a form of proof by omission, and I feel that we should fully understand how unlikely detecting signals and races can be. We haven't even culled down further by estimating the number of planets that were in the process of developing intelligent life, capable of communicating with us, by early accidents involving huge meteors, ice ages, super novas, plagues, and Vogons (et al).

I am certainly hoping that our technologies will help us detect planets other than (alledgedly) inhabitable gas giants. I can hardly wait!

Thanks for the open mind, re the entry.

smiley - towel

Hey DB!

Thanks for adding that additional factor. Just as our technology is increasing, aliens may well have discovered how to make sup-space communication a reality, or quantum communication, and that's if they aren't telepathic in the first place!

I'd have probably stretched that period to a few decades or centuries, but I catch your drift.

So, ... bush wants to democracize the planets without people OR robots?! A new role for the psychics; democracy by telepathy, perhaps.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 11

Two7Right

Thanks DB.

Although delayed there is till SIM. Also Kepler and ESA's Darwin. So not all is lost.

27R


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 12

Two7Right

Ford (may I call you Ford?),

If Ghz make you feel froody try todays - 1.420605469. smiley - cool

I'll include a bit about asteroids and atmosphere in the entry.

27 is fine buts its extremely dangerous to confuse R with L

27 smiley - smiley


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 13

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

Since set classic stopped functioning and I converted to BOINC I can no longer find the Ghz frequency - which is disappointing.
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=55556472
Unless, I'm looking in the wrong place, which doesn't bode well for a seti-seekersmiley - erm

Where do you find yours, 27R?


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 14

FordsTowel

G'day, 27R (wouldn't want you mistaken for a southpaw):

Glad to see the entry resolving and getting closer to the EG! smiley - oksmiley - applause

smiley - towel

PS: Ford's the big guy. I'm just this towel, you know?


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 15

Two7Right

Annie,

Its on the graphics display that goes with the data set being crunched. Highlight the live line 'Running' and the graphics box will be highlighted on the left. Click on that and a new window will open behind. The image dances around which is a bit irritating.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 16

BigAl Patron Saint of Left Handers Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Monobrows

I think it would be nice to give sources for your figures. For example, the figure I've seen most often quoted for number of stars in the Milky Way is 100, ooo million (ie 10^11).

Then data from Hubble Space Telescope estimates that there may be 125 bn (1.25^11) galaxies in Universe.

Hence 10^22 stars in Universe (more than all the grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth)

Of these (Harlow) Shapley estimated that 1/1000 have a soloar system (ie 1.25^8 solar systems in Universe (this is important because, in our own solar system, Jupiter has defelected countless comets which could have wiped out early life forms before they could get established)

Say each solar system has 9 planets (=11.25^8 planets

Say 1/1000 of these have an atmosphere (= 11,25^11 planets with an atmosphere)

Say 1/10000 of these could have produced 'life' (=11.25^2 planets with possibility of a life form)

So, rounding up, there is a possibility of say 1000 planets in the Unverse with some form of life on them (primitive or highly evolved)

smiley - smiley


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 17

FordsTowel

Hey BA:

I certainly like the mental excercise, putting numbers to the variables. And, I wouldn't darest suggest that my numbers (guesses, really) were better than anyone elses. Still, the 1,000 estimates sounds a bit low. Maybe it's the 1/10,000 figure that does it; I'm not sure.

I'd suggest that, if we consider our arm of the Milky Way to be "average", and started estimating from there, we'd find that the "average galaxy" has X number planets that successfully formed intelligent life.

Multiplying that x by the number of galaxies, and creating a bell-curve from the results to account for anomolies, we'd find that we end up with millions of civilisations.

Now, these civilizations would not all coexist in time, so the chance for contact would still be low. And the distance between the co-existing ones would normally be vast. But, statistically, we may find that 'Some' planets with civilisations would co-exist near enough to 'Other' planets with civilizations for discovery and communication to be possible. Others may only find that they were close when they found remains of other planet civilisations.

The fact that we didn't luck out may be a mere numbers game.

That's it. I just feel that we underestimate the chances of having a neighbour.

smiley - towel


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 18

BigAl Patron Saint of Left Handers Keeper of the Glowing Pickle and Monobrows

Yes, I certainly believe that there could be a large number of planets with life within the Universe it's just that the distances between them are likely to be vast and, therefore the chances of making contact wirth an advanced civilisation, extremely low.

However, I'm encouraged by experiments/theoretical studies that seem to show that the creation of life, given the right circumstances, is inevitable.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 19

Two7Right

Hi BA & FT,

I'll look at putting some figures into Drake by way of an example but I don't want to go too heavily down the technical road lest it puts people off. Having said that it is by its nature a v tech subject when one gets into it.


A9320032 - Other Worlds: Thoughts to Encourage the Interested

Post 20

Deek

Hi there
It seems to me that in terms of being a prospective EG entry this piece is somewhat long on opinion and short on balance.

My main concern is that the conclusion that there ‘are’ other civilisations out there has already been taken as a given, when this is by no means proven, and there is no evidence to support it. No consideration is being given here to the distinct possibility that there are no other forms of life out there, and that we are in fact alone.

One other thing that irks is the comment that 'it is bordering on arrogance for anyone to seriously think that Earth is home to the only sentient beings in the entire universe.'
Well, having thought about it over the years, I happen to take that view, but personally I don't feel particularly arrogant about holding it. It seems a pity to dismiss a body of differing opinion with so little regard to the reasons for coming to those conclusions without exploring them within the context of this article. It may be that that opinion will have to be modified at some point in the future, but on the present evidence I don't think it's going to be any time soon.

Sorry, this may well be a commendable discussion piece but as it stands I don't think it’s suitable for the EG in its present form.
DK


Key: Complain about this post