Are We Alone In The Galaxy? Updated Drake Equation Suggests We Might Be

[K218b]

https://www.iflscience.com/are-we-alone-...t-be-74438

A new paper taking a look at the Fermi Paradox using the Drake Equations has suggested an uncomfortable solution: maybe we are alone in the galaxy.

If you haven't heard of the Fermi Paradox, it goes something like this: given the vastness of the universe and the probability that implies of life evolving elsewhere, how come no alien civilization has ever gotten in touch? We have found many exoplanets in the brief time we've been looking. Surely there must be someone else out there who, like us, desperately wants to find others

The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all in my opinion because the distances between the stars have not been understood well as it seems. With conventional means interstellar travel is impossible. Even if we assume some civilizations are technologically advanced that doesn't imply they could make contact or be able to find us.

There is also the problem of synchronicity. Civilizations don't last forever and advanced civilizations may have existed in the past, let's say hundreds of millions of year ago, but they have now gone. They are extinct. These civilizations will never be able to find us and vice versa as we live through different eras.

The other problem is self-destruction and we could argue that intelligent civilizations are destroyed before reaching sufficient advancement to make contact and this is another factor we need to consider.

The probability we are the only ones in the Galaxy is miniscule. The ingredients needed for life are the same everywhere and in very large quantities. Consider our Galaxy, the Milky Way, that contains at least 100 billion stars and as many at least as many planets. The Universe is an area that contains up to 2,000 million Galaxies which on average contain around 100 billion stars...

The numbers are huge and the most likely scenario is that life is present and was present everywhere. The problem is elsewhere and it has to do with the distances, the era in which civilizations exist, extinctions before reaching very advanced civilization levels, and the speed at which radio signals are travelling.

Unless some civilizations have already found the means to manage interstellar travel. Non conventional of course.

[Maxmars]

https://www.iflscience.com/are-we-alone-...t-be-74438

The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all in my opinion because the distances between the stars have not been understood well as it seems. With conventional means interstellar travel is impossible. Even if we assume some civilizations are technologically advanced that doesn't imply they could make contact or be able to find us.

There is also the problem of synchronicity. Civilizations don't last forever and advanced civilizations may have existed in the past, let's say hundreds of millions of year ago, but they have now gone. They are extinct. These civilizations will never be able to find us and vice versa as we live through different eras.

The other problem is self-destruction and we could argue that intelligent civilizations are destroyed before reaching sufficient advancement to make contact and this is another factor we need to consider.

The probability we are the only ones in the Galaxy is miniscule. The ingredients needed for life are the same everywhere and in very large quantities. Consider our Galaxy, the Milky Way, that contains at least 100 billion stars and as many at least as many planets. The Universe is an area that contains up to 2,000 million Galaxies which on average contain around 100 billion stars...

The numbers are huge and the most likely scenario is that life is present and was present everywhere. The problem is elsewhere and it has to do with the distances, the era in which civilizations exist, extinctions before reaching very advanced civilization levels, and the speed at which radio signals are travelling.

Unless some civilizations have already found the means to manage interstellar travel. Non conventional of course.

I have always been a sort of closet dissenter about both the Fermi, and Drake equations.  It's not that I disagree with their approach to 'modeling' reality.  It's just that - as modern notions have recently proven - you can't expect to be able to attribute all the details of reality within your model.  There are a lot of presumptions, which seem all perfectly  reasonable, but that does not mean they include everything.  Everything is that 'thing' which we don't know.  

So new information, new analyses, and new thought processes should be expected to, if not supersede the old model, at least "inform it."  

The article was good, but I failed to detect "what" they "changed" which makes them opine the formula might have been wrong.  And the title kind of disappointed me too.  In the days of those scientists, "formulas: and "equations" were not haphazardly selected to stand out.  This was a solid piece of mathematical work by a thinker of great reputation. 

Nevertheless, it is a model only. Capable only of considering what we can conceive to quantify. Those things are always to be defeated by what we don't know.

I think it extremely unlikely that "we are alone."  You don't "need" to be a technologically "communicative" species to exist.  Consider more primitive life, consider life which may employ technologies which we can't detect or recognize?  There will be life, somewhere.

[K218b]

I have always been a sort of closet dissenter about both the Fermi, and Drake equations.  It's not that I disagree with their approach to 'modeling' reality.  It's just that - as modern notions have recently proven - you can't expect to be able to attribute all the details of reality within your model.  There are a lot of presumptions, which seem all perfectly  reasonable, but that does not mean they include everything.  Everything is that 'thing' which we don't know.  

So new information, new analyses, and new thought processes should be expected to, if not supersede the old model, at least "inform it."  

The article was good, but I failed to detect "what" they "changed" which makes them opine the formula might have been wrong.  And the title kind of disappointed me too.  In the days of those scientists, "formulas: and "equations" were not haphazardly selected to stand out.  This was a solid piece of mathematical work by a thinker of great reputation. 

Nevertheless, it is a model only. Capable only of considering what we can conceive to quantify. Those things are always to be defeated by what we don't know.

I think it extremely unlikely that "we are alone."  You don't "need" to be a technologically "communicative" species to exist.  Consider more primitive life, consider life which may employ technologies which we can't detect or recognize?  There will be life, somewhere.

The Drake Equation is a mathematical approach in estimating the likelihood of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. Of course this estimation is based upon assumptions and our understanding of physics. The new paper has reduced the lower and upper limits in comparison to what Drake gave back in the 60s. The equation is a probabilistic argument and an attempt to qualify the current number of extraterrestrial civilizations that are intelligent enough to be able to communicate.

But in terms of life in our universe and starting from our galaxy that contain at least 100 billion stars and at least as many planets, I think anyone can answer the question if like exists in our galaxy. You don't need to go that far by the way. Europa the moon of Jupiter contains at least twice as much water as here on Earth. Very likely it also supports some kind of life. Likewise for Enceladus, the moon of Saturn. Or even Mars and Venus that could still have microbial life.

[schuyler]

Every variable in the Drake Equation is a guess or an assumption, which is a fancier way of saying it is a guess. They may or may not be educated guesses, but they are still guesses. Changing the assumptions about a single variable doesn't change that. It does not make the equation more or less valid.

Frank and Sullivan, the two guys responsible for this revision of the Drake Equation, also have some built in assumptions that are NOT part of the equation. For example, they bring up the limitations imposed by the speed of light, suggesting that a round trip to some other civilized planet would take longer than a given civilization would be alive. This says more about our understanding of reality than reality itself. We've convinced ourselves that faster than light travel is impossible, this in spite of the inconvenience of quantum entanglement. But if you eliminate that assumption, then the time-related variables still in the equation are invalid.

Now throw in the assumption that three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional space-time, if you prefer) is all there is to the Universe, and you may as well throw out the Drake Equation altogether as an anthropomorphic representation of humanity's current understanding that has little to do with reality itself.

[argentus]

Although it's a book/movie, I like the quotes in the work 'Contact'  where  Ellie and her father figure say:  

• Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?
  
• Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.
  

While the Drake Equation has variables which cannot be assigned, even if we take a minimalist approach, we are left with millions of civilizations, just within our galaxy alone.  The interstellar distances -- at least within context of our primiative modes of travel -- are currently insurmountable.   

I believe that many civilizations have survived to the point where we are now.    They either progressed past the point of self-destruction and grew, or they perished, never to be heard from again.   I personally believe that we will eventually discover or report evidence that supports the notion that this is exactly what happened on Mars long ago.   

I don't have a difficulty with the Fermi Paradox, because it seeks to measure distances that are well beyond our abilities.   Are they well beyond the abilities of all the "others"?   Probably not, but consider, if you will, how we humans relate to ants.   We think they are amazing, and their social structure is worthy of study, but how often have we attempted to communicate with them?   We consider them so far below our level of intelligence that communication is impossible, and yet, there is a wealth of evidence that they communication to a very high order among themselves.   Same with bees.   

I wonder what ants and bees 10,000 years from now will be, or 100,000, or 10,000,000, assuming us knuckle-draggers don't wipe everything out for the sake of social mores -- politics and religion.

---

https://www.iflscience.com/are-we-alone-...t-be-74438




The Fermi Paradox is not a paradox at all in my opinion because the distances between the stars have not been understood well as it seems. With conventional means interstellar travel is impossible. Even if we assume some civilizations are technologically advanced that doesn't imply they could make contact or be able to find us.

There is also the problem of synchronicity. Civilizations don't last forever and advanced civilizations may have existed in the past, let's say hundreds of millions of year ago, but they have now gone. They are extinct. These civilizations will never be able to find us and vice versa as we live through different eras.

The other problem is self-destruction and we could argue that intelligent civilizations are destroyed before reaching sufficient advancement to make contact and this is another factor we need to consider.

The probability we are the only ones in the Galaxy is miniscule. The ingredients needed for life are the same everywhere and in very large quantities. Consider our Galaxy, the Milky Way, that contains at least 100 billion stars and as many at least as many planets. The Universe is an area that contains up to 2,000 million Galaxies which on average contain around 100 billion stars...

The numbers are huge and the most likely scenario is that life is present and was present everywhere. The problem is elsewhere and it has to do with the distances, the era in which civilizations exist, extinctions before reaching very advanced civilization levels, and the speed at which radio signals are travelling.

Unless some civilizations have already found the means to manage interstellar travel. Non conventional of course.

Much as the red dwarf you reference in your name, there are world within worlds which we cannot see, but can only guess.   We tend to guess that life out there is based upon carbon the same as us.   What if it is based upon ammonia, or hydrogen?   What would they even look like?  Perhaps their vibrational energies would make them invisible to us.

[K218b]

Although it's a book/movie, I like the quotes in the work 'Contact'  where  Ellie and her father figure say:  

• Young Ellie: Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?
  
• Ted Arroway: I don't know, Sparks. But I guess I'd say if it is just us... seems like an awful waste of space.
  

While the Drake Equation has variables which cannot be assigned, even if we take a minimalist approach, we are left with millions of civilizations, just within our galaxy alone.  The interstellar distances -- at least within context of our primiative modes of travel -- are currently insurmountable.   

I believe that many civilizations have survived to the point where we are now.    They either progressed past the point of self-destruction and grew, or they perished, never to be heard from again.   I personally believe that we will eventually discover or report evidence that supports the notion that this is exactly what happened on Mars long ago.   

I don't have a difficulty with the Fermi Paradox, because it seeks to measure distances that are well beyond our abilities.   Are they well beyond the abilities of all the "others"?   Probably not, but consider, if you will, how we humans relate to ants.   We think they are amazing, and their social structure is worthy of study, but how often have we attempted to communicate with them?   We consider them so far below our level of intelligence that communication is impossible, and yet, there is a wealth of evidence that they communication to a very high order among themselves.   Same with bees.   

I wonder what ants and bees 10,000 years from now will be, or 100,000, or 10,000,000, assuming us knuckle-draggers don't wipe everything out for the sake of social mores -- politics and religion.

---

Much as the red dwarf you reference in your name, there are world within worlds which we cannot see, but can only guess.   We tend to guess that life out there is based upon carbon the same as us.   What if it is based upon ammonia, or hydrogen?   What would they even look like?  Perhaps their vibrational energies would make them invisible to us.

Good question.

Carbon based like is what we know and almost certainly exists in various parts of the universe. Many many of them.

But is it the only element that life can be based upon? Probably not. There is no rule or law in nature that prevents life to be developed id it's not carbon based.

---

Every variable in the Drake Equation is a guess or an assumption, which is a fancier way of saying it is a guess. They may or may not be educated guesses, but they are still guesses. Changing the assumptions about a single variable doesn't change that. It does not make the equation more or less valid.

Frank and Sullivan, the two guys responsible for this revision of the Drake Equation, also have some built in assumptions that are NOT part of the equation. For example, they bring up the limitations imposed by the speed of light, suggesting that a round trip to some other civilized planet would take longer than a given civilization would be alive. This says more about our understanding of reality than reality itself. We've convinced ourselves that faster than light travel is impossible, this in spite of the inconvenience of quantum entanglement. But if you eliminate that assumption, then the time-related variables still in the equation are invalid.

Now throw in the assumption that three-dimensional space (or four-dimensional space-time, if you prefer) is all there is to the Universe, and you may as well throw out the Drake Equation altogether as an anthropomorphic representation of humanity's current understanding that has little to do with reality itself.

The equation is an attempt to quantify the probability of intelligent life in our galaxy. It seems we are almost certain that it does exist but where and when are the main problems and how we communicate over large distances.

We need to build up things based on our perspective and understanding of reality. It would be unwise to do otherwise.

[Nerb]

The thing that has always bugged me about The Drake Equation ever since I watched Carl Sagan on TV talk about it, is just how simplistic it is and how it's limited in simplistic variables and just a single one added would be exponential to any result or negate it altogether especially when combined with even more variables.

What if Intelligent Life in the Universe also depends on some fundamental things that allow it to come into existance?

An atmosphere with clouds to create a static electrical charge as they skim the land and produce lightening which may create that spark to be the catalyst of life?

A Moon to create tides and an ebb and flow of the shores of the oceans and a secondary source of (reflected) light for all those blobs under the sea to begin their thought processes beyond survival and go exploring beyond their limited domain?

How about a non-stable and rapid constantly changing environment for that primitive life meaning that it must adapt rapidly to survive before those changes wipe it out?

Most importantly, a thought process that has reached beyond survival to thrive in it's environment and actually have the time to wander the possibilities of a future using the liberty of a free and unafraid imagination?

I like the concept of The Drake Equation, but to me, it just seems way too simplistic to be realistic without considering so much more and to also have the ability to consider things from a non human perspective. Perhaps Intelligent life is EVERYWHERE, but our biological vision sees nothing and our limited senses are stuck to that old survival mechanism.

I think the answers are all around us, not out there and the answers are not for seeing with our two eyes but vision with our third eye, activation of the Pineal Gland and a well grown Hippocampus, and if we believe in "them", they are maybe right there and have been a long time. Perhaps that works both ways, and the Intelligent life we seek will do the same and a huge Paradigm Shift will lead to Contact, beyond something physical.

Manifestation is a sensitive practice with outcomes that can be hard to accept and sometimes harder to realise, especially for third parties.....until the results show it's power, then it can flow it's energy and show how undeniable it is.

After all, we are here on D.I. aren't we? How often and for how long did we dream of a place without all the crap associated with ATS?

Thanks to Carl Sagan for sending me "out there" into the Cosmos all those years ago.

[Karl12]

Thanks to Carl Sagan for sending me "out there" into the Cosmos all those years ago.

Hey Nerb here's a relevant article on Sagan's position concerning the 'strong probability' of the Earth being visited by ETs every few thousand years.. and alien moon bases.

Prof Says Beings From Outer Space Have Visited Earth

Associated Press, November 26, 1962


LOS ANGELES. (AP) - Some of the best scientific minds in the country were stumped when a slender, dark-haired young man chalked on the blackboard this equation:

N equals R FP NE FL FI FC L.

The speaker was Dr. Carl Sagan, a 28 year-old assistant professor of astronomy at Harvard University.
His audience consisted of several hundred members of the American Rocket Society, gathered for his luncheon address.
The equation was his way of expressing the mathematical probability that intelligent beings from outer space have visited earth.
Sagan soberly explained that in his equation N Stands for the number of advanced technical civilizations in the universe possessing the capability of interstellar communication.

R is the mean rate of star formation averaged over the lifetime of the galaxy.
FP is the fraction of stars with planetary systems.
NE is the mean number of planets in each system with environments favorable for the origin of life.
FL is the fraction of such planets on which life does develop.
FI is the fraction of such inhabited planets on which intelligent life with manipulative abilities rises during the lifetime of the local sun.
FC is the fraction of planets populated by intelligent beings on which advanced technical civilizations rises.
And L is the lifetime of this technical civilization.

Sagan said information in his formula is based on current estimates by astronomers. In making calculations, he assigned each symbol an arbitrary numerical value.
As expressed in numbers, Sagan said, the formula means that at least 1 million of the 100 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy have planets which have developed civilizations capable of travel between the stars.
"Let's say that each of these civilizations sends out one interstellar expedition per year," he said.

"That means that every star, such as our sun, would be visited at least once every million years. In some systems where these beings found life, they would make more frequent visits. There's a strong probability, then, that they have visited earth every few thousand years.
"It is not out of the question that artifacts of these visits still exist or even that some kind of base is maintained, possibly automatically, within the solar system, to provide continuity for successive expeditions.
"Because of weathering and the possibility of detection and interference by the inhabitants of earth it would be preferable not to erect such a base on the earth's surface. The moon seems one reasonable alternative."

"Forthcoming photographic reconnaissance of the moon from space vehicles - particularly of the back - might bear these possibilities in mind."
At a news conference Sagan predicted man himself would be capable of interstellar flight at close to the speed of light "within a century or two."
Asked if he believed in flying saucers, he said: "I do believe there are objects which have hot be identified."


Link

[Maxmars]

Hey Nerb here's a relevant article on Sagan's position concerning the 'strong probability' of the Earth being visited by ETs every few thousand years.. and alien moon bases.

I had heard (but I'm not certain it's true) that Dr. Sagan was "convinced" to withdraw his support from the idea of alien/ufo topics by the "authorities."  They didn't want him fanning the flames of public interest in this area... That if he wished to be relevant as a scientist, he had to stop speculating on such things in public...

I wonder if that explains his relative silence, and even resistance on the matter later in his career.

[Karl12]

I had heard (but I'm not certain it's true) that Dr. Sagan was "convinced" to withdraw his support from the idea of alien/ufo topics by the "authorities."  They didn't want him fanning the flames of public interest in this area... That if he wished to be relevant as a scientist, he had to stop speculating on such things in public...

I wonder if that explains his relative silence, and even resistance on the matter later in his career.

Yes mate well said and many folks (including me) think that Sagan was a prime candidate for CIA recruitment.


There's some relevant info below regarding the CIA Robertson Panel whitewash and if I were an astronomer I'd be feeling pretty 'duped'.

• "They were coming up with the conclusion that 'we should debunk the UFO phenomenon' (in essence they should lie about it) and 'here's how we are going to do it'.

One of the key ways this panel commissioned by the CIA pointed as a way of doing this (they called it 'disseminating their gospel') were amateur astronomers.

When you put that in context you say it makes sense that Dr Menzel might be involved in the effort to cover things up because as the nation's leading astronomer who better to convince amateur astronomers that the whole UFO thing is bunk?

3:25

Stanton also describes below a 2013 pseudo-sceptic 'debunking' article published in 'Astronomy Magazine' so it looks like the CIA 'gospel' is still being 'disseminated'.

• "There's an article in the current issue of astronomy magazine 'The Science Behind UFOs' which mentions none of the large scale scientific studies, mentions none of the dozen PhD theses that have been done about UFOs, mentions nothing about the physical trace cases, the radar visual sightings, the abduction cases - this is the 'science behind UFOs?"

1:20

Probably no coincidence that the author of that article (Phillip Plait) was awarded the 'Philip J. Klass Award' in the same year (nor that CIA/NSA operative Donald Howard Menzel was 'mentor' to Klass).

Klass also used to boast about citing both Bobby Ray Inman and Daniel O. Graham as references (not bad for an 'electrical engineer').

Admiral Bobby R. Inman (USN Ret.)—the former Director of the National Security Agency, who also held Deputy Director positions at both the Central Intelligence Agency and the Defense Intelligence Agency—and Lt. General Daniel O. Graham (USA Ret.), the former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Link / 22:30

Luckily not all astronomers have fallen for this BS and thought some of the statements made here were pretty relevant - especially the ones by Dr. Bernard Haisch (Director for the California Institute for Physics and Astrophysics).

Personally not that fond of the ETH as an explanation for unidentified flying objects but it certainly is a bit fishy the way astronomers have been lied to by intelligence agencies about this subject.