Probability of ET's visiting us (modified Drake Equation)

a reply to: Gothmog

I thought it was actually quite impressive how well thought out the Drake Equation was when I started to modify it. I added several extra terms but in the end I was able to trim it back down to something very similar to the original Drake Equation because the variables are defined in a way so they encapsulate all the most important probabilities.

Numbers are stoopid.
There's too many of them.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nice work and well though out.

Regardless of what tech they have we are quite certain that no other particle moves faster than the speed of photons

Just remember that humanity has been quite certain of a number of things through the years, which we now are equally certain is wrong. So to assume we know all there is to know about how the universe works is probably not prudent.

Another thing is that you assume they would detect our signals first and then come visit, but could not an advanced spacefaring civilization seek out and investigate habitable planets as a matter of exploration?

I'm pretty certain we would if we had the means.

An interesting number would be, using conservative numbers, how many potential visitors there would be in our galaxy alone. Or in the known universe.

Anyway, well done!

Cheers,

BT

a reply to: beetee

Even if there is some way for them to detect us from hundreds of light years away, which I highly doubt, they'd still need to be able to reach us. The probability of them having both those capabilities is extremely small. Also the chance of them locating our planet just by exploring is absolutely tiny as well, the equation indicates we are the only intelligent species in our region of the galaxy so we're talking about aliens from hundreds of light years away locating us through exploration. Admittedly that is something I did overlook though, if they've been exploring for millions or billions of years there may be a reasonable chance they have found us.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I still think your work is impressive. And you demonstrate that the probability of there being other civilization-building species co-evolving with us is pretty slim, using your parameters.

I am just contributing to critique your work and suggest some other avenues for expansion.

Also there are some other things to consider. Like the definition of "intelligence" and "civilization". Just on this planet, there are a whole bunch of quite intelligent creatures. Some are even using tools, apart from us. So, the question is where to draw the line between what is intelligent enough to create a space faring "civilization?¨

At this time, here on this planet, there is just one species, us, who have proven capable of this. But if you had looked at us a mere 500 000 years ago, you would probably not have guessed we would be the species to do it.

So, another parameter then that creates some uncertainty in your equation, is how many potential future space faring species are there on just this planet? We know that some species are already using tools. We know that some species have highly advanced social structures. So, in say a million years, how many other space faring races might there be?

I know this is difficult to quantify, but I still think it is interesting to consider. If, for example, in a million years there has evolved not one, but two, space faring civilizations on this planet alone, the numbers would be quite different.

I think the Drake equation has always been very tantalizing, because it shows the potential out there. And the more we seem to learn about the universe around us, the more likely it seems we are not alone. Just the recent influx of newly discovered planets has upped, as you point out, the likelihood of there being other critters out there.

It would be far stranger that we were alone in the Universe than the opposite. To quote Sagan, it would be a tremendous "waste of space".

Still like your work though. This is the kind of research I just love.

BT

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: surnamename57

Regardless of what tech they have we are quite certain that no other particle moves faster than the speed of photons so the quickest method of detecting our presence is looking for our radio signals. What other possible way of detecting us could they use? Let me guess they use their psychic powers to remotely view us.

Of course, I have no idea what life detection systems other possible intelligent species have or have had at their disposal. Had I known it, I would have written my own equation.

What I want to stress here is that assessing other intelligent entities’ ability by your standards or your own technology is a deep-rooted tendency of human psychology.

To put it differently and plainly, you are drawing up the bill in the absence of the innkeeper.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Gothmog

I thought it was actually quite impressive how well thought out the Drake Equation was when I started to modify it. I added several extra terms but in the end I was able to trim it back down to something very similar to the original Drake Equation because the variables are defined in a way so they encapsulate all the most important probabilities.

Drake's Equation is provided to use "at your own risk"

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Usually when people run numbers through the Drake equation they use conservative, liberal, and moderate values. From what I remember I read for liberal optimistic numbers it would be one intelligent civilization every 20,000 light years across our galaxy. I believe someone raised the point with Saturn V rocket technology it would only take 30,000 years to travel our entire galaxy. So the galaxy should be teaming with extraterrestrials. But they are not hear is the argument.

I still love the Drake equation. The cooliest thing on subject for getting a serious idea on the numbers and probabilities.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I would find new sources.

The approx. width of the MilkyWay galaxy is 100,000 light years.

Very basic understanding means : If you could travel the speed of light. It would STILL take 100,000 years just to cross it ONCE.

That's going 186,000 miles per second. Not miles per hour.

The only feasible way to travel those distances, would be to bend space time. Our current concept of travel = speed = less time is archaic and only works on smaller localized distances.

As soon as master warp drive. Pulling space time closer, as we push space time behind us further away. (Riding a wave a warped space) that's when those distances will be obtainable. It will have nothing to do with any conventional means we use now.

What may have a further impact is the outcome of new findings. It seems that the chances of 'life as we know it' out there in space may be rarer than ever thought because of the lack of phosphorus.

See : www.eurekalert.org...

a reply to: mirageman

I think the key phrase as you point out mirage man is "life as we know it." I believe there is a whole lot of life out there as we do NOT know it. We know such a tiny tiny tiny amount of how the universe operates at this moment.

infinite size infinite chances..
Monkey and the typewriter

We have already been invaded by the idea of aliens, and that idea has spread pretty quickly around the globe. Maybe that's all aliens are. Ideas that get spread through spacetime, possibly in our visions and dreams.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
We have already been invaded by the idea of aliens, and that idea has spread pretty quickly around the globe. Maybe that's all aliens are. Ideas that get spread through spacetime, possibly in our visions and dreams.

Is that Michael ShermerI hear?

I'm sure I have heard him say this before, anyways, it's interesting.

originally posted by: data5091
a reply to: mirageman

I think the key phrase as you point out mirage man is "life as we know it." I believe there is a whole lot of life out there as we do NOT know it. We know such a tiny tiny tiny amount of how the universe operates at this moment.

That is a most excellent point data.

originally posted by: surnamename57
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If you really think that the only way extraterrestrials can discover our existence is by detecting our radio signals, then you are assuming that they possess the same level of technology as ours for detecting life and on this account your equation is flawed.

If a premise is wrong, then everything that follows from that premise must be wrong.

Quite right. The cherry picking in this version of the equation is strong.

originally posted by: mirageman
What may have a further impact is the outcome of new findings. It seems that the chances of 'life as we know it' out there in space may be rarer than ever thought because of the lack of phosphorus.

See : www.eurekalert.org...

Possible, but i read that article and it seems the research is still in its infancy.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: beetee

we're talking about aliens from hundreds of light years away locating us through exploration. Admittedly that is something I did overlook though, if they've been exploring for millions or billions of years there may be a reasonable chance they have found us.

I've been thinking a little bit about this and it occurred to me if this were actually the case we'd find it much easier to prove their existence and we'd find it hard not to notice their presence while looking at distant star systems because if their civilization was truly that old they'd be a "type III" civilization and would have massive structures everywhere. I think it'd be quite amazing if the galaxy was so packed full of life while appearing so empty to us.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed


I am of the camp that believes Valle is closer to the truth (whatever it is) than anyone else. Whatever people have been seeing -- from Leprechauns to sky-shields, airships and UFO's is actually a product of our own environment in some way and not from a nearby star system.

I can't shake the idea that massive alien fleets or even lone saucers feels too much like a collective human wish from the middle of the last century. It just doesn't jibe with what we have come to understand about, well -- anything, since then.

For example: there is no evidence of large-scale stellar engineering in our local neighborhood, which is weird because we could literally build solar energy collectors around our own star right now, using existing technology, if we had the desire or will to do so.

To me, that would be the first step before, long before interstellar travel, if only to make use of a laser highway system for accelerating spacecraft by orders of magnitude more than any other form of propulsion we already have.

FTL aside (which may be possible, but currently violates the laws of physics), long distance "generational ships" or robot (Von Neumann) probes seem much more likely, given what we actually know about the cosmos today (as opposed to 75 years ago).

Honestly, I suspect that another 50 years will change that view entirely as well, meaning -- whatever it is you saw, it probably wasn't literal 'aliens.' I'd love to be wrong (and hope I am) but I see no logic to restricting alien intelligence to a 1950's understanding of the universe when they might be -- by definition -- thousands or even millions of years more advanced than we are.

Fi = the fraction of those planets on which intelligent life does evolve
Fc = the fraction of those civilizations which detect our signals and travel to us


These are tough ones. If we look at earth, humans are one of trillions of species/life forms that evolved on our planet, and we are the only species to get to the moon in 4.5 billion years. 4.5 billion years is also about 1/2 the usable time in our universe has had to make planets etc as we know today.

I think when we see that space travel and evolution takes a lot of time and species in general are around a very short period of time, it seems we constantly run into either making trillions of species that do not have everything align perfectly and even when that happens species come and go to quickly for it to matter. In your two fractions above I see them as extremely small fractions to say the least.