The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

The topic is not "extraterrestrial life", but "extraterrestrial intelligence". And they are not anywhere close to the same thing.

I accept that there is likely lots of life in the galaxy, maybe even on other planets and satellites in our own solar system.

But that is not the same as intelligent life. The odds are shrinking that there is anything even close to our level within at least 50 light years, and each year that bubble is growing exponentially.

 

It seems somewhat difficult to stop there being intelligence once there is life.

Maybe one could postulate that the resources for acquiring energy are sufficient for life, but too limited to support intelligence.

Our own brains do require 20 watts. So, maybe the argument is that 20 watts is just too much to ask in this universe - except on Earth.

 

Just look at how many times life on this planet did a "hard reset". Heck, this is not even the original "Earth". And there are at least 5 major extinction events that eliminated most life on the planet.

It took over 4.5 billion years for life to get to this step on our planet. In that, "intelligent life" has been around less than 1 million.

 

I think your 4.5 billion years may be more like 3.8 or so, but that's OK.

The universe is about 13.7 billion years old.

So, there is a lot of time for life to start in some other place and potentially advance to where we are or beyond.

In terms of difficulty in FINDING intelligent life, there is the problem of distance and the possibility that life somewhere advanced to where we are and beyond, but subsequently died out. Maybe their planet got consumed by their sun, such as is Earth's destiny.

 

Already covered in post 314.

In short, not possible. When the Big Bang happened, the only element was hydrogen. It took over 100 million years just for the first stars to form (Population III stars). These were all short lived, on average 2-5 million years, and most went supernova as they were massive, and released a lot of helium. Then another 12 billion years of star birth and death for enough material to form to create even the first generation of rocky planets, around Population II stars. And for life, you need rocky planets rich in heavy metals. We know this for a fact by studying the most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field. The most distant are approximately 12 billion light years away, so we are seeing them as they were 12 billion years ago. And other than hydrogen, the only "heavy element" of note we can detect is sodium, elemental weight of 11. That sodium would have to go through many more cycles of being "cooked" and transformed in stars until it becomes iron (elemental weight 55), let alone the heavier elements.

We also know that from closer observations. The oldest planetary system we have discovered is HIP 11952, about 13 billion years old (a Population II Star). It has 2 gas giants, and we have not detected any rocky planets around it, and the star is very metal poor.

You need Population I stars to have enough of the heavier elements to create life. And those only evolved around 7 billion years ago.

As far as the age, the most commonly accepted date is now 4.54 billion years old.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/topics/resource-library-age-earth/?q=&page=1&per_page=25

But even that is the age of "Earth Mark II". The original formed with the solar system around 4.57 billion years ago, but at around 4.5 billion it was struck by Thea, blowing off a lot of our crust to form the Moon, and in return leaving it's own core onto our planet which is why we still have such a hot and active core long after the one of Mars went cold.



And to get "life", you need to have more than just the right distance from the star. You also need a very large core. Mars is actually on the outer fringe of the "Goldilocks Zone", and it is lifeless. Because the core was of average size, and went cold about 4 billion years ago. No core, no protection from the solar wind. The only rocky planets in our solar system with a core still is the Earth, and Mars and Venus. But theirs are kept active by tidal stress from the Sun, which also makes them very inhospitable for life because of that and how close they are.

I actually do believe life once existed on Mars. But it died billions of years ago, due to the core solidifying and the abrupt change in the conditions on the planet.

 

For now.

The James Webb Telescope will either:

1) Prove the 13.7 Billion years obtained from data from the Hubble Telescope; or
2) See even farther and extend the age of the Universe.

No, the problem is your government, all other governments (with the possible exception of Russia) and your scientists and everyone else's scientists (again with the possible exception of Russia) have repeatedly failed or refused to look for life where life most logically would exist.

Your government looks at a distant galaxy 150,000,000 light years away and says, oh, gee, sorry, can't find any life.

Do G/K-Class Stars support life? Yes, this one does, because our own Sun is a G-Class Star.

Logic --- sheer unadulterated logic -- says you look for life around G/K and M-Class Stars because those stars lend themselves to the formation of terrestrial planets.

G/K/M-Class Stars, by definition, are not massive. When they form, they leave lots of remnant material around them which forms terrestrial and also gaseous planets.

There are 10,000 G/K-Class Stars within 50 --- count 'em, 50 light years not 150,000,000 --- light years right here in our own galaxy.

Why look at other galaxies?

Why is your government so afraid to look in its own backyard?

What is it that frightens them so much that they've been playing with your head for the last 80 years?

 

Interesting. I've see absolutely no reluctance to examine nearby stars - even our own solar system's planets and asteroids.

If you can point me to something on that, I'd be interested.

As for the James Webb telescope changing the age of the universe, my own understanding is that there could be corrections, but the kind of data used to support the current age is unlikely to be refuted by a bigger telescope.

I sure hope that telescope is successfully deployed and that it unfurls and works!

 

If you're talking about 'intelligent life' regarding SETI, then 'intelligent life' means a civilization that can send and receive radio waves...on Earth this would be about that last 125-150 years...

 

13.7 billion years is considered the 'visible Universe' which is constrained by technology. Improved technology, allowing scientists to see further, will change the 'visible Universe' age...assuming there is matter to be seen beyond 13.7 years...

 

That is your interpretation. Technology and intelligence are not the same thing.

And looking up at the title of this thread, it is "intelligent life", not "life".

 

That is exactly what I said.

When I was in high school, sadly, we were still using 1960s science textbooks and the age of the Universe was given as 6 Billion years.

In my life-time, the age of the Universe has more than doubled, and all thanks to technology.

The James Webb Telescope is far more powerful than Hubble. It will be able to see farther. The only question is what will it see.

 

Naming a star and placing it into a classification system is not "examining" it.

How many stars in the Milky Way Galaxy has Hubble "examined?"

That, in fact, is a trick question, because Hubble hasn't looked at any of them. You just have to go to the Hubble website.

Your government has wasted decades and $Billions staring at pulsars, quasars, neutron stars and black holes in other galaxies and to what end?

How has anyone benefited, other than a handful of astro-physicists getting a chubby?

If something happened on the morrow, where would we go? We're gonna go live on a neutron start in a galaxy 1.4 Billion light years away?

Not.

Don't get me wrong, the quest for knowledge is noble and worthy, but that's the wrong quest for the wrong knowledge. What's our Return on Investment? Nothing, because we haven't learned that much more.

Crank Hubble around and start staring at the G/K/M-Class Stars right here in our spiral arm of the Milky Way.

That will benefit everyone to a greater extent.

Then you need to find a better website than the one you're getting your bad info from.

The age of the Universe is based on the distance light travels.

Effectively, the most distant object that can be seen is the age of the Universe.

Once they figured out how to calculate the speed of light, it was simple, but primitive telescopes couldn't "see" very far.

The bigger telescopes built at the end of the 19th and early 20th Centuries could "see" farther, but they had limitations, namely, Earth's atmosphere impeded their ability to "see."

It wasn't until we had the technology to accurately detect and measure x-rays, gammas, UV, infrared and such that we built radiometric telescopes. We knew there were distant stars/galaxies out there, we just couldn't see them.

That was the whole point of Hubble. To put a telescope in Space where it wouldn't be impeded by Earth's atmosphere. And Hubble was way more powerful than any telescope on Earth. Hubble's most distant object is 13.7 Billion light years away, thus that is the age of the Universe.

The Webb telescope is even more powerful than Hubble. It will be able to "see" farther. Again, will it see anything?

If it does not, then it has verified Hubble's data and age of the Universe is 13.7 Billion. If it detects a more distant object, then the age of the Universe will increase. By how much? I don't know. I think Webb will detect something about 15-18 Billion light years out.

 

You can wish that astrobiology would move faster, but the budget is limited and there are incredibly serious issues of physics that are highly worthy objectives.

And, your comment about Hubble isn't true.

Here's a list of NASA satellites that are and will be pushing astrobiology forward:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-search-for-life-astrobiology-in-the-solar-system-and-beyond

And, those are NASA, obviously. The EU and others have some incredibly interesting astrobiology missions as well.

Let's remember that it wasn't that long ago that we didn't have the capability to detect exoplanets!!

I'll probably comment on your other area of comment later.

 

SETI is a search for ET's that have at least the same technological levels as we have...hence radio waves and other markers...

 

There are several different methods of determining the age of the universe as described in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

It's true that increasing our observational power will likely reach a more accurate number. But, that will come from having greater accuracy in the measurements of those methods - not simply from being able to see more distant objects.

In fact, there are conflicts between these measurement methods that go beyond simple measurement error - there are actual hard core issues of physics that have to be resolved.

Also, examination of our cosmos is an approach to figuring out why our model of quantum mechanics doesn't match our standard model of Einstein gravity.

I don't believe we can guess at what it would mean to us for physicists to figure out why these two models of physics don't seem to match. Of course, those who lived before Einstein's advance in physics could not have imagined what relativity has brought to us, either. Science is not like engineering. Advances in science often come without there being some known application or known benefit to society.

Discarding these issues of physics so lightly just isn't acceptable.

 

True. Plus, SETI has expended it's methods of search significantly.

Besides that, one interesting addition made by SETI (as I understand it) is there work on determining the greatest distance that an alien civilization could detect life on Earth using the technology WE have - kind of a reverse view.

That can add ideas on how we could search for intelligent alien life.

 

You can't limit the search for life to direct detection alone. Exploration advances by increasing our knowledge in all fields.

For example, physicists have advanced in understanding of how red dwarf stars operate.

Such stars periodically emit wildly intense radiation outbursts that would sterilize any planet that would exist in what we understand as the habitable zone. Thus looking for life near red dwarfs seems doomed.

BUT, current work of physicists is showing that those outbursts may be pretty much exclusively coming from the poles of the red dwarf stars.

That could mean that life could possibly survive on planets of red dwarf stars if the orbits are aligned. Plus, red dwarfs are known to have exceptionally long lives - perhaps more likely to give the kind of time required for life to develop.

Also, we can't ignore engineering, of course. The stupendous decrease in the cost of launching payloads has allowed us to move beyond the 1990s, when very little got launched due to the extreme cost.

Also, our advance in detection equipment, solar panels, nuclear based power sources, etc., has made it possible to create the tools for advancing our search for life.

So, it's physics+biology+engineering+budget, plus pretty much everything in between.

 

I know exactly what it is. But you keep injecting something else, using "life" and "intelligent life" almost interchangeable to suit your needs.

 

My guess is that it doesn't matter that much. Once there is life, life will evolve, and the chance that big smart brains WON'T develop seems unlikely. After all, we're talking about billions of years.

 

Well, it took over 3 billion to evolve to where we are now.

How many planets can remain habitable, and avoid all the ELE so that it can evolve to that level? Of all the planets in our solar system, only a single one allowed that. I bet that most in the "Goldilocks Zone" only last 2 billion years or less, and even if life evolves, never gets beyond the most basic multi-cell organisms before they are snuffed out. Runaway icehouse, runaway greenhouse, ELE, or simply the core cooling. Or even the first mass-extinction on the planet. An organism arising that changes the planet drastically, and life is unable to adapt fast enough and all die instead of just 98%.

 

I assume whatever distance they decide is at least x*2 the theoretical number...technological advancements can happen quickly and exponentially.

It's just a matter of time...

 

No idea what you are talking about?? 'Intelligent life' meaning equal or greater than us...

 

That is not what it means. The definition is actually "Cognition" or "Sapience", that of a creature being self-aware, and able to plan its actions and not working only on the lowest levels of instinct.

Which means not only us, but all of the "Great Apes". All have shown this ability, are self-aware, and qualify as "intelligent life". As well as all of the now extinct sapiens and their ancestors to the first of the Homininae split from Chimps 13 million years ago.

"Intelligent life" does not mean modern human level intelligence. In fact, humans today are in reality no more intelligent than humans of 15,000 years ago. We simply start from a higher foundation because of our accumulation of knowledge. And in another century we will be even "greater" than we are now. So you are trying to chase a completely false trail here. Plus there are a great many other factors at play.

In fact, that is what the "Drake Equation" is all about. And the more we are discovering about our own planet, the more likely it is that we are alone.



N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

 

Good luck with SETI finding 'great apes' on other planets.

The Drake Equation proposes based on the above variables how much 'intelligent life' might be out there.

Nothing has been discovered about Earth that indicates we are likely alone??

Curious how you think 'great apes' fit into the 'N' variable above??

 

The fundamental problem of the Drake equation is that it assumes we know the various dimensions it mentions and that there are no other dimensions.

IMHO, that's a totally unsupportable set of assumptions.