Old Robot Tonsils reckons the chances of Intelligent Alien Life in the vast known Universe are pretty slim.

Anyways, you peeps mite find this article interesting. Faceman will no doubt jizz in his tin-foil pants.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/07/-stephen-hawking-why-is-the-milky-way-not-crawling-with-selfdesigning-mechanical-or-biological-life.html

Isn't this question better posed to a biologist? Seems like Mr Hawking thinks he is one.

The observable universe is so gigantically massive you can be pretty sure there's an intelligent species out there.

And their biggest weakness happens to be tin foil, FYI.

last edited by Phooks at 23:36:12 14/Jul/09

and on the topic of faceman I read something today that he would love;

Subjectivism is as you may have Guessed, is rather opposite to objectivism. the universe being subjective to your observation.. where as everything you observe is a construction of your mind. Radical subjectivism is even more.. radical, where the universe ceases to exist when you look away. You might think this is a bit silly and self centered, but think.. when you die.. where does the universe go? how do you know its still there? and another thing: can you remember everything you did last weeK? how do you know you did anything? memory is fleeting and often false. how do you know theres a wall behind you untill you look?

last edited by Phooks at 23:36:31 14/Jul/09

Isn't this question better posed to a biologist?

I was gonna say Scientologist, but hey - whatever tickels your deity Greece

whatever, hawking is an idiot

Remember, Biologists < Chemists < Physiscists

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png

thats silly and you know it

i don't see a flaw in what hawkings argues... if science is right about the age of the universe & the time required for biogenesis & evolution to intelligent life... then why can't we detect any radio evidence of them anywhere in the milky way? hawkings says that there could well be other explanations but one explanation is that the chance of biogenesis elsewhere is a lot less than previously thought.

Why hasn't the Earth been visited, and even colonized? Hawking asks. "I discount suggestions that UFO's contain beings from outer space. I think any visits by aliens, would be much more obvious, and probably also, much more unpleasant."

I can't believe that Hawking has seemingly regurgitated the Fermi Paradox without reference to the fact that this is an old argument first posited by a 1950s physicist?

Maybe there's better referencing and acknowledgement in the actual paper...

I prefer the Douglas Adam's explanation of why 'anything' to do with space.

"Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space."

Just use that as the answer to any question or theory and I reckon it'll do the trick.

eg, Q: How come we haven't heard from aliens yet?

A: Space is big.

if you read the original source article it's actually more about biogenesis & evolutionary timetables... both here on earth & possibly on other planets. as usual the reporter from dailygalaxy.com has mostly quoted hawkings out of context because a headline like Stephen Hawking: Why Isn't the Milky Way "Crawling With Self-Designing Mechanical or Biological Life?" is probably going to get more readers than something like "snippets from a Stephen Hawking's musings on evolutionary timetables."

hawking is a professor in the field so i am sure that when he gave his lecture he would have done the appropriate references to prior works... but there has been a few developments to the discussion since the 1950s eh? like how SETI was shutdown as a waste of resources? :P

Agree, even Dawkins would be a better person to speak on this than Hawking.

But while I don't expect us to ever come across anything in our lifetime, the chances of there not being anything out there anywhere at all if not now but ever are just incredibly slim.

Also, Zy and Red take the prize for consecutively posting two of the greatest memes ever :)

but there has been a few developments to the discussion since the 1950s eh? like how SETI was shutdown as a waste of resources? :P

My criticism was based on the material in the article linked (I did mention that Hawking himself hopefully did a better job in the original).

As to the SETI thing? My entire point was that the Fermi Paradox has been deeply explored over the past 50 years, but its expressed as a new Hawking idea in the linked article. Which is wrong.

Im not a Physicist but I dont see anything unusual about our little Solar System or our little part of an even larger Galaxy.
There may even have been a civilization on Mars Billions of years ago.

We might not be the highest form of developed life in the Universe and in fact we might be considered very low level life and not worth contacting.
Life on other planets may choose not to advance society technologically.
Hard to contact them unless we actually went there.

i think Solar Systems are more likely to be the Wombs of Space and there are many many of them Just waiting for fertilization by a comet or a meteor colliding with a fertile host planet (egg).
What Aliens might be is really only limited by our own Imagination.

I think UFO/Aliens are very real and have been visiting here for a very long time. They may have been involved in kick-starting us from herbivores to carnivores to thinkers. Is it just a coincidence that Modern Humans evolved in the same area as the Earths largest Gold deposits ?

waiiit, what exactly are you trying to infer with the gold/human thing (if that is even true, cbf verifying)? serious question?

also, lol @ trog.

The fact that Space is so mind bogglingly large is probably the most relevant argument towards our lack of discovery of, and hence, interaction with extra-terrestrial beings.

Assuming our theories of relativity and limitations of physical travel throughout space are close to correct, then its gonna take a LOOOooooooooooong time for any sentient aliens to even find us, let-alone reach us.

Pimp yo

http://www.hotelchatter.com/files/3/monicastephen.jpg

He's a gansta rapper.

The fact that Space is so mind bogglingly large is probably the most relevant argument towards our lack of discovery of, and hence, interaction with extra-terrestrial beings.

Assuming our theories of relativity and limitations of physical travel throughout space are close to correct, then its gonna take a LOOOooooooooooong time for any sentient aliens to even find us, let-alone reach us.

This has been mathematically explored which is the problem posed by the paradox.

Even with the hugeness of space, the difficulties of travel, and the assumed rarity of intelligent life, we should still know about others by now unless something about the Universe is much different to what we expect.

Remember that the bigness of space is offset by the oldness. There has been a long, long time for life to evolve many times over in our neighbourhood - but there's no evidence for it at all. If we are the only life in our neck of the woods to ever gain technological advancement then we are either staggeringly rare (absurdly so) or f***ed in the very near future.

last edited by Hogfather at 14:37:22 15/Jul/09

This has been mathematically explored which is the problem posed by the paradox.

Are you talking about the Drake equation? I've always hated that thing; it just seems like a wildly speculative guess with some lipstick and a wig to make it look like actual maths/probability.

Remember that the bigness of space is offset by the oldness.

If we assume, for the moment, that the speed of light is really the be all and end all in the universe, then I would say the age offset isn't big enough to really justify it. I mean, humanity has only been beaming s*** out to space for a blink of an eye.

Just saw this comic couple days ago which I thought was cool - how far certain radio signals have propagated throughout the galaxy. Regulus, the furthest thing on there, is only 77 light years away! That's peanuts. Because space is big.

Hubble deep field is picking up s*** 10 billion light years away.

In conclusion, space is big, who knows what crazy s*** is going on out there.

Hubble deep field is picking up s*** from 10 billion years ago.

If you believe in Panspermia life must have existed where a comet or asteroid came from or at least the potential ingredients. Indeed if we ever blew up this planet a bit of the building blocks of life from Earth may collide with a distant planet billions of years from now kickstarting life on That planet like what may have happened here.

If we are the only life in our neck of the woods to ever gain technological advancement then we are either staggeringly rare (absurdly so) or f***ed in the very near future.

how do you mean 'f***ed in the near future'? what's the source of danger?

trog the drake equation is just part of it... & yeh it's so loose it can be used equally well to prove or disprove extraterrestrial life. true our radio emmisions into space are not so old... only around 100 years. but if, as speculated by hawking in the source article, other species attained intelligence in a shorter time frame then thier radio emissions could have reached further... but nothing detected so far.

the purpose of such discussions aren't really to definitely prove that aliens exist or not. rather to get a general idea at the probability & compare it with a prior view of the probability... & here we are.

Hubble deep field is picking up s*** from 10 billion years ago.

This is true, but that just doesn't seem like as big a deal to me as the distance involved and all the exact things that need to line up to receive a signal from someone randomly beaming EM radiation into space

edit:

What I'm really saying is, if you look at Earth an example - let's say that the difference between some other planet starting to developing life that can evolve to human intelligence is like, 10,000 years (or 100k, or 1m, or some non-significant number in the scale of the universe) - but it's all the way over the other side of the galaxy - say for the sake of example 100,000 lightyears away. Then we won't know about it for ages.

Unless we send space ships off NOW!

the purpose of such discussions aren't really to definitely prove that aliens exist or not. rather to get a general idea at the probability & compare it with a prior view of the probability... & here we are.

well my perspective is basically that if it happened once, it can happen again, and I just figure we've done (really) dick to look, so calling it already just seems premature

best be shooting off an email to the hawkman & let him know just how wrong he is then i spose ;D

First off, the Fermi Paradox is real. People much smarter than anyone in this thread have confirmed that its a problem with our understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything (just for you torgles).

Smart bastards like Sagan et al have been wrestling with it for decades - nobody in this forum has the 'true' answer, and most all of the arguments have already been covered by said smart bastards without any one of them trumping the problem.

how do you mean 'f***ed in the near future'? what's the source of danger?

Well, if advanced technological life is not astonishingly rare (ie, we are pretty much it) then something happens before a civilisation can make its mark on the universe.

Its the Great Filter theory ...

We have not yet observed evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life, though we have observed a great number of stars. Therefore, the whole process of starting with a star, and ending with communicating intelligent life, must be unlikely (the Great Filter). This implies that at least one step in this process must be improbable. Robin Hanson listed the likely steps as:

1. The right star system (including organics & potentially habitable planets)
2. Reproductive molecules (e.g. RNA)
3. Simple (prokaryotic) single-cell life
4. Complex (archaeatic & eukaryotic) single-cell life
5. Sexual reproduction
6. Multi-cell life
7. Tool-using animals with big brains
8. Colonization explosion

We are at the start of point #8 now and are beginning to be able to comunicate with our local part of the galaxy if very slowly and badly - we're listening hard and sending out lots of radio.

If its not amazingly rare to get to #8, then there's nothing to assume that we are special. We haven't marked the Universe with our presence deeply yet, or for very long - but we will soon.

This implies that the Great Filter is yet to affect us - whatever prevents civilisations from population explosions is yet to happen to us. But whatever it is, its likely to be unpleasant for us!

last edited by Hogfather at 15:58:41 15/Jul/09

you have got to be kidding me hogfather.

space is big. We are talking really big. Humans have explored MUCH LESS THAN 0.000000000000000000000001% of the known universe. that's how big it is.

aleins haven't contacted us yet because they're so f***ing far away.

yo mr.hawkman... did yuo consider in yur calculationz that SPACE IS REALLY BIG!?! guyz on the qgl rekn ya jumped the gun on callin' it, ya wheeliee retard!@#! lols.

has anyone thought that "alians" may not have plausible thumbs no they can't make things like radio or maybe their just to primitive or not even humanoid
Edit: Also has anyone coincided how many million light years it would take for the radio waves or something along those line to reach us let alone ufo's with alian corpses in them?

you have got to be kidding me hogfather.

space is big. We are talking really big. Humans have explored MUCH LESS THAN 0.000000000000000000000001% of the known universe. that's how big it is.

aleins haven't contacted us yet because they're so f***ing far away.

Wow you solved the Fermi Paradox, you're the smartest c*** on the planet! I'll get onto Carl Sagan for you.

d*******.

Too late he died a while ago unless your a Psychic.

re seti:

how weak a signal can those massive antennas pick up? obviously this is a factor of distance, but how close does the signal need to be for us to pick up alien skinimax.

First off, the Fermi Paradox is real. People much smarter than anyone in this thread have confirmed that its a problem with our understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything (just for you torgles).

teehee!

I prefer to think of the Fermi Paradox as a theory that just hasn't been disproved yet. I live in hope that "tomorrow" will be the day that it's proven wrong :)

Huh?

You don't understand. The paradox can't be 'wrong' trig because it doesn't assert what the reason is, just that there is a curious situation where our understanding of the universe doesn't appear to match up with the observations.

Everything you and others have said is a -possible- if untested resolution to the paradox. There's a REASON why the apparent paradox exists; nobody has been able to conclusively demonstrate what it is.

The answer could be as simple as 'there are no aliens at all' but the idea that our situation is utterly unique in the massive and ancient universe seems slim to sat the least.

last edited by Hogfather at 21:44:53 15/Jul/09

If its not amazingly rare to get to #8, then there's nothing to assume that we are special. We haven't marked the Universe with our presence deeply yet, or for very long - but we will soon.

Well really, we haven't even marked our own Local Bubble deeply, letalone even our own galaxy, which even then is such a minutely small area compared to even the local group, then you have galaxy clusters, then bigger structures. Our effect on the Universe is so insignificant, it's probably not even worth factoring.

But whatever it is, its likely to be unpleasant for us!

Well I'm sure Zombie Apocalypses aren't very pleasant.

last edited by 3dee at 22:00:06 15/Jul/09

oh and if intelligent technological life is so rare, I think this somes it up:

The observable universe contains about 3 to 7 × 1022 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars),[16] organized in more than 80 billion galaxies, which themselves form clusters and superclusters.[17]

About the speed of light thing being the be all and end all... i dont get it.

Somethings velocity is always relative to something right? But in space it in theory can have the universe relative to it. So whats stopping that thing assuming that the universe is moving at - 200 000 m/s and then going at the speed of light in the +ve vector?

Further more, if you have a torch in space (god knows why you would, but anyway) and its moving at a velocity relative to our good old sun (as a random relation) at 1m/s forward. Does the light out the other end go speed of light -1m/s? s*** doesnt make sense. If it were moving through a medium it would, but apparently its not, so...

What you think???

I think ...

a) space is BIG ... like bigger than a big mac big! ... bigger than the debt that qld is in due to current government big!

b) as has been stated smart people have discussed this topic for a long time and I'm sure if you google any one of these arguements there are lots of discussions from both sides (a lot of interesting reading if you get bored)

c) I honestly belive we are but a tiny part of something so huge most people can't even understand the size and if by some miricle we are the only evolved life form f*** we are good but I doubt we are personally.

d) We haven't even fully explored Earth and we are trying to do calculations on if we are the only life form in the universe bahahhahaha ...

but i was asking about travel and speeds, not size or big macs...

At some stage in the future Time Travel will be possible so all we need to do is wait for people from the future to travel back to Our time and show us how its done.

Perhaps, they already have.

Somethings velocity is always relative to something right? But in space it in theory can have the universe relative to it. So whats stopping that thing assuming that the universe is moving at - 200 000 m/s and then going at the speed of light in the +ve vector?

I don't really understand your question.

However, it seems like you are struggling with the invariance of the speed of light. This is very common.

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Its sort of like accepting the duality of light as both wave and particle, it doesn't seem to make sense but it is demonstrably so.

There is a lot of counter intuitive stuff about the speed of light. Simple Newtonian physics and Galileo's 'normal' theories of relativity just break down as we approach the speed of light. A new set of rules (Einstein's special relativity) is needed to explain and consolidate the observed behaviours.

last edited by Hogfather at 17:45:47 17/Jul/09

that is what i was on about hogfather. Cheers.

Interesting article. Its counterintuitive to me atm, but so is the combined particle wave theory. I recon that we just have a working understanding of it yet.


Next question. Can anyone name a force that has no negative component? Electrical charges and magnets have negatives. What about gravity? Is it the only force with no negative component? Why doesnt it? Have we not found it?

At some stage in the future Time Travel will be possible so all we need to do is wait for people from the future to travel back to Our time and show us how its done.

Perhaps, they already have.

If time travel were possible, events such as the Moon landing would be inundated with an uncountable number of time tourists.

Also, Time travel assumes time exists and isn't just some arbitrary measurement that we use to measure now to now. Such as measuring the length of a meter. A meter doesn't exactly exist as a thing, but the concept does.

good point. but doesnt the twin paradox disprove time as being arbitrary units of nothing? Is it even linear?

If time travel were possible, events such as the Moon landing would be inundated with an uncountable number of time tourists.

Not necessarily.

There are certain explanations of Quantum Mechanics (specifically the Everett many-worlds explanation) that specify that its probabalistic nature gives rise to a multiverse of parallel worlds.

What does this mean? In simple terms there are an infinite number of decision points that spawn multiple parallel universes. Under such conditions, the existence of a timeline under which no future traveller has yet arrived is not only possible but predicated - the act of successfully inventing time travel is only one of many potential outcomes.

This neatly absolves time travellers from interfering with causality, as their appearance in the past simply invokes a new decision tree in space time. It does however present a dire warning to any traveller as they may find themself in a new time line orphaned from their own familiar future reality.

I love this s***!

last edited by Hogfather at 19:35:53 17/Jul/09