New Drake Equation

[Schuyler]

Thought some of you might be interested in the development of a new Drake Equation on the possibility of life in the universe: New for alien habitats | COSMOS magazine

 

[skunkape]

Seems like an awful lot of work to come up with an equation that is still, basically, just a guess.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Stagger]

Interesting, thanks. And this remark is also interesting:

Astrobiologist and physicist Paul Davies, of the University of Arizona in Tuscon, said it was a "pointless exercise" as the equation refers only to life as we know it.

"The main thing omitted from the conventional Drake equation is the possibility of life inside icy planetesimals, most of which are rogue objects, untethered to stars. Such life is, however, most unlikely to be intelligent," he said.

This (life-but-not-as-we-know-it) is, in my view, a somewhat neglected topic. The best treatment I've seen of the topic is Feineberg and Shapiro "Life Beyond Earth" (1980) - which, for some unexplainable reason, seems to be out of print (though you can still find it used). In chapter 12 they went as far as doing away with chemistry entirely: physical life. Of course it might be extremely hard to gather any experimental data on that. Then again, a bit out of the box thinking doesn't hurt. And, as usual, if you don't look...

It's not like in the life-as-we-know-it department we made a such whole heck of a lot progress either, in terms of reproducing the exact mechanisms that got it started. Sure, Miller Urey etc. etc. is not nothing.

 

[Schuyler]

Yeah, it is a guess, just like the original. But if you look upon it as not so much an attempt to 'be correct,' but instead as a way to engage the issue, then it puts a different spin on it. For example, we have discovered 300+ planets around other stars so we're getting a lot closer to having a harder number for that part of the original equation. We're going to get even better at that with the Kepler mission.

 

[Stagger]

Seems like an awful lot of work to come up with an equation that is still, basically, just a guess.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

The equation is not a guess by the way. It's more to help us understand which parameters you have to take into account if you want to make a slightly more elaborate guess than: are we alone? yes/no.

Assigning values to these parameters is, for now... yeah, a guess

 

[skunkape]

are we alone? yes/no.

I've already solved that one to my own satisfaction. The answer is "no."
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Stagger]

I've already solved that one to my own satisfaction. The answer is "no."
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

I'm 90% "yes" (as far as technological civilizations are concerned). With a 10% of, "but we better to check, you never know".

 

[Rek2008]

Seems to me if you apply the Drake equation, which was meant to calculate the possibility of life in our milky way galaxy, to what is probably an infinite number of universes or branes, then the answer would have to be a resounding "NO". We are not alone in the universe/universes. Imagine how frickin' sad it would be to be the only intelligent life in infinite space.

 

[Stagger]

Hi Rek2008,

Seems to me if you apply the Drake equation, which was meant to calculate the possibility of life in our milky way galaxy

Absolutely. It's better to formulate the basic question as "Are we alone in (..SPECIFY..DOMAIN..)?" then.

Personally, I'd be content if we could find a clear answer which is valid within the realm of our own galaxy and its immediate surroundings. Until then, I'm pretty sure the answer is "yes".
I like to see all sides of the argument but, to me, Tipler's paper is, by a very long shot, what makes the most sense.

If we include the whole universe, I'd say "we just don't know".

, to what is probably an infinite number of universes or branes, then the answer would have to be a resounding "NO".

Well that is just an hypothesis right now, we have no proof of even one universe besides our own. Additionally, I do not personally believe in sets with an infinite number of elements as actual things which can occur in physical reality. Any theory that requires that will end up creating more problems than it solves. There could be 3^^^^100 universes springing into existence for every nanosecond of our time, but infinite.. that's a different story.

Imagine how frickin' sad it would be to be the only intelligent life in infinite space.

Perhaps. But it might actually be good news, see Nick Bostrom's paper.

Greetings