The Seager Equation

Rather than bore you with any further analysis of the Drake Equation...if it is unfamiliar to you,

you can go here

or here

or especially here! for tons of info on the subject.

This thread is about a new equation, meant to compliment the Drake Equation (not replace it), and its creator is Sara Seager, I'm sure you've heard of her...



seagerexoplanets.mit.edu...

The new equation looks like this:


Where:

N is the number of planets with detectable biosignature gases
N* is the number of stars within the sample
FQ is the fraction of quiet stars
FHZ is the fraction with rocky planets in the habitable zone
FO is the fraction of observable systems
FL is the fraction with life
FS is the fraction with detectable spectroscopic signatures



Her goal is relatively short term...

Seager is interested in predicting our chances of detecting any kind of life within the next ten years.

“We’re actually on a different track, where we’re trying to find signs of life on another planet,” she says, “and the only way we know how to do this right now is by remote sensing.” In other words, spectroscopic imaging — the process of splitting the light up from a planet or any star and trying to identify what gases are present by what they have removed or added to the light. “Just like on Earth where we have satellites that look down to measure gas concentrations, we can use space telescopes to look at the atmospheres of planets far away,” she explains. “We’re going to look for gases that essentially don’t belong — gases that may be produced by life.”

This is fascinating, as one can actually come up with a current "number", using today's technology:

N = 2

And I'm sure that number will increase in the near future!

The James Webb Space Telescope, 2018, will help in that search - io9.com...

io9.com...

Thoughts??

reply to post by Signals


A mathematical theory based on more theories..
But I guess we have to start somewhere, with a theory that is
I wish we could "just" get out there and have a look

reply to post by Spacespider


While I see your point (83% of statistics are made up ) , there is some real science behind this equation....

Some very interesting research. I recall that Carl Sagan felt there could be millions of civilisations in the Universe. However with over 125 billion galaxies in the Universe, according to the Hubble telescope, that's one civilisation for every 100,000 galaxies.

The average galaxy is 100,000 light years across so, even travelling at the speed of light, it would take many thousands of years to exit your own galaxy. Then you would have to cross the space between your galaxy and the next galaxy which can be millions of light years.

But the next galaxy is very unlikely to harbour a civilisation. You may have to survey 100,000 neighbouring galaxies to find another civilisation. Even if you could survey one galaxy per year with an army of robots, it could take tens of thousands of years, zipping around at light speed, to complete your quest.

And these are all quite liberal estimates. If Sara Seager is right, and there are only a few civilisations in the Universe, then we would have to travel for billions of years at the speed of light, surveying billions of galaxies, before we eventually find another civilisation.

Maybe it's time to put the ET hypothesis on the shelf, and look for more probable explanations ?

reply to post by wemadetheworld

If Sara Seager is right, and there are only a few civilisations in the Universe, then we would have to travel for billions of years at the speed of light, surveying billions of galaxies, before we eventually find another civilisation.

I think there may be WAY more than just a few.. From what I can make of this as "FO", increases (or any variable), so does "N"...

In other words, as technology and telescopes become more advanced, the more civilizations we will discover, because they are almost certainly out there.

i am pretty sure erich von deiniken did the same with the drake equation ?? mind you he gets called a nutter

We think we know more about the universe than we really do.

It's comforting to think we know everything so when we don't we make stuff up and people believe it because then they feel like they know what is going on.

I don't really like Sara Seager because from what I've seen of her on UFO documentaries she appears to be another one of those skeptics with super strong opinions but have never actually done any research.

Maybe I'm just thinking about the wrong person.

This is fascinating, as one can actually come up with a current "number", using today's technology:

N = 2

Er..you didnt exactly mention what 'N' is supposed to be. Is it a percentage or a total of something or what?

N = Number of planets that may have habitable zones.....and show anomolous gasses thru sprectothingimebob.

So the formula is using 30,000 stars only, therefore @ 30,000 stars etc etc as per the explanation...................

N = 2 Planets out of 30,000 star systems, may have those special "Life" gasses.

But there are MILLIONS of star systems just in our own Galaxy....therefore N would be greater...BUT we cant detect via spectrothingamebob, all the stars in our own little Galaxy.

But at least they are trying, and its a start. (Why they just dont ask the Aliens already here, I dont know )

reply to post by gort51


Ah ha, thanks

Unfortunately I haven't heard about her, but she seems cool. Her approach is plausible based on what we know now at least. Also it's more manageable form of SETI than trying to detect some weak stray signal given all the interference and small odds.

Main thing to look for is free oxygen. (O2 or O3) Normally that chemical wants to bind to other stuff. (CO2, H2O, etc.) Seeing that is a really good sign you have photosynthesis of some kind going on. A planet with that could be just an ocean planet with a lot of primitive algae, but hey it qualifies as life. Regardless, that's the key starting point for all higher life that we know of.

More interesting might be certain fluorocarbon compounds. As far as we know, nature doesn't make those on its own. They're typically halons used as refrigerants, solvents, extinguishing compounds, or whatever. Seeing that means there might be industrialization on a planet that is on par with our own. Whether or not they have problems because of what they did to their ozone layer (if they had one) is another question. At least this is something we supposedly managed to get under control. (But there's likely still enough that lingers to detect by spectroscopy.)

Time for a foolish question.

FL is given as the fraction with life. The fraction she uses is 1. One? If it's a fraction, that must mean all of them. What in the world (or some other world) is going on?

Is she saying that out of the 30,000 stars there is only 1 M Class? If so, then it's not properly labelled as FL.

I give up.

Originally posted by charles1952
Time for a foolish question.

FL is given as the fraction with life. The fraction she uses is 1. One? If it's a fraction, that must mean all of them. What in the world (or some other world) is going on?

Is she saying that out of the 30,000 stars there is only 1 M Class? If so, then it's not properly labelled as FL.

I give up.

edit on 24-6-2013 by charles1952 because: add

If I read your point correctly, then 1 is the only number that can be in there as there is only solid evidence of life on one planet - this one - at this point in time. Did I misunderstand?

I don't understand how faith can be put into either this or the Drake equation until the actual sample data has more than one planet confirmed as hosting at least one species of something we would identify as a life form, and is even that enough? If we find algae on Mars then technically that means life exists there, but it's hardly likely to travel here and say hello.

reply to post by Signals


How do they work this part out

FL is the fraction with life

That is a guess and equation with a guess in it results in a GUESS!

reply to post by wmd_2008


Well yes, "educated guess" maybe...

Like another poster pointed out, this seems like a better plan than searching randomly for radio signals

Originally posted by gort51
N = Number of planets that may have habitable zones.....and show anomolous gasses thru sprectothingimebob.

So the formula is using 30,000 stars only, therefore @ 30,000 stars etc etc as per the explanation...................

N = 2 Planets out of 30,000 star systems, may have those special "Life" gasses.

But there are MILLIONS of star systems just in our own Galaxy....therefore N would be greater...BUT we cant detect via spectrothingamebob, all the stars in our own little Galaxy.

But at least they are trying, and its a start. (Why they just dont ask the Aliens already here, I dont know

)

"spectrothingamebob" Awesome lol

I don't believe these equations have a jot of meaning to them. They are based on a materialistic world view and the mistaken idea that life is purely a result of physical processes. But if life requires a spiritual factor it will only evolve as a result of spiritual intervention. As a result of Mind consciously setting up a system of living things.

reply to post by EnPassant


I agree with above. While she has obviously added some new factors, it does not take into account that other life forms may not need an oxygen atmosphere to survive.

Meanwhile, the Drake Equation, published decades ago, was discussed in Carl Sagan's book, Intelligent Life in the Universe, and he points out that once ONE civilization passes the critical survival test, it would naturally pass on that life-saving information to lesser evolving civilizations, so no need to be so pessimistic with a projected N of 2!

He called that passing on of survival skills the "galactic inheritance" and I can't wait!