Scientific Paper: It's Likely We Are Alone In The Observable Universe

https://arxiv.org ^ | June 26, 2018 | Hank Berrien

[Swordmaker]

We have huge antennas. We have very low noice front ends. We have very narrowband filters. We know how to track and integrate signals from space over time.

And what have we detected?

Nothing. Nada. Rein. Niente.

Consider this. An intelligent technological civilization may exist for a very long time in our universe. We are such a civilization, but so far our detectible "bubble globular surface" radio signal wave front is only about 120 light years in radius around our Star. We are seeking other civilizations by listening for signals in those same radio frequency bands because we assume that’s what they’d use to communicate. . . Same as we do.

But we didn’t before 120 years ago. . . and even now we, in many ways are moving away from broadcasting to narrowcasting (it’s more efficient and less wasteful of energy) to even using laser light point-to-point communications that has zero leakage. What if a breakthrough were to be made tomorrow in macle paired electron communication, where two electron’s spins are opposite and when one is reversed, the other instantly reverses, no matter how much distance separates the two, and this phenomenon is applied to communications over any distance, including interstellar distances, with zero time lag, making radio wave communications completely obsolete overnight?

The point I’m making is that it’s certainly possible that we are akin to native tribesmen listening for signal drums and watching for smoke signals on the horizon to find neighboring tribes, but because we don’t grasp that the neighbors around us are using radios and more advanced means to communicate, we conclude we are alone.

To return to the bubble analogy. . . for a short time, a technologically advanced civilization may shine and glow brightly in the radio spectrum, sending their entertainment and communications out into the universe. . . but once they realize how wasteful of energy (and perhaps dangerous) that is, and as better more advanced non-radiative means of distributing their data spread (cable anyone?), the amount of radio waves shirink to minuscule and then with breakthrough tech, back to none at all. So instead of a sphere of constantly expanding radio noise emanating from their civilization, they’ve created a hollow ball with no radio signals inside it as they moved on to other means of communication that did not radiate.

For a very brief time, each civilization may announce itself with its soap bubble wave front of data, which gets larger, but also weaker and harder to discern from the background noise the farther it gets from its creation point.

But we SETI seekers would have to be just in exactly the right place and THE RIGHT TIME PERIOD of that civilization’s development to hear them, sense them, receive them, whatever them, before the ever expanding, perhaps 100 to 500 year thick soap bubble wall, passes us by at the speed of light, and it goes into technologically advanced silence.

Since the Universe is 13,000,000,000 years old, there is no guarantee that any civilization is the same age as us. . . some may already be millions of years more advanced. Finding one that had their age of radio transmission at exactly the right time for their soap bubble wall to reach us WHILE our age of radio listening is ripe to catch it on its way by is almost impossible . . . Especially one that still has a strong enough signal which we could detect.

Those are the real high astronomically high odds against finding other intelligent neighbors.

[Tallguy]

I’ve seen a few related articles that substitute Milky Way (our galaxy) for the term “observable universe”. I don’t know if that’s deliberate, or the writer’s interpretation of what the scientific papers are saying.

[Big Red Badger]

Virtual reality Stagnation...

Yup.

Smart Phones and Pot,
We are Doomed.

[Big Red Badger]

More of a comment on this thread,
FRiend.

[InterceptPoint]

Thanks for the post. Mine could have been better since I do believe there is intelligent life in this universe of ours that is beyond Earth. But way beyond.

And I agree with your comments about the long odds against our being in the right time and place to actually make a detection. Those RF filled spheres traveling at light spreed may last centuries or millinea, a relatively short period for a universe that counts time in billions of years.

Bottom line: I’m on your side. But our chances of finding intelligent life elsewhere in the universe are, at least in the near term, very slim.

[Para-Ord.45]

Paradox states the sky should be full of radio signals and aliens flying around.
There are none of both, nothing,not one single signal.
Why?
MIT biochemists tackled this,cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.
Meaning life just cannot randomly appear out of nowhere.

[Para-Ord.45]

Too hard to.

MIT crunched the numbers,Cassette mutagenesis experiments suggest that the probability of attaining (at random) the correct sequencing for a short protein 100 amino acids long is about 1 in 10 to the 65 power.

Miller-Urey experiments failed to produce functioning amino acids despite cheating, using purified water, dumping in ampicillin,super heating to 80C,centrifuging, adding reagents,SEEDING,etc,etc.

[Para-Ord.45]

Those two guys, Miller and Urey ;-)

[DoughtyOne]

Now now, it gets better...

“:^)

[User901]

"..with all these complicated equations with multiple unknown variables, you can get out whatever result you want depending on how you define the inputs"

Our thoughts and feelings are invisible, cannot be explained or defined by the laws of physics, are a reality that exists outside of the physical world, yet this huge truth goes completely ignored.

I suspect intellectuals go deep into attempting to explain the physical world as a means to distract themselves from explaining the ever present truth of their own soul. Which would lead them to the truth of God. Which would mean they would have to humble themselves to a higher being. Which can be uncomfortable.

[Brilliant]

Yes. Sorry. I meant light years.

[papertyger]

We have data points regarding many planets circling other stars. That’s just a fact.

You’re looking in the wrong direction. It’s not a matter of how many planets we have to work with; it’s a matter of conditions for, and probabilities of, a self-replicating, self-diagnosing, self-repairing, self-fueling, Von Neumann entity.

Knowing that, the parameters you have to work within are MUCH better understood.

[papertyger]

Oh spare me.

Your pique over presuming my superciliousness is SEVERELY misplaced. Or do you imagine carbon, oxygen, and the other “stuff” of life act differently if you change their “address.”

Your distress is nothing but vanity. You don’t know what you don’t know, but I DO know what you don’t know. Otherwise, you’d be confuting me instead of being offended by my confidence.

[doorgunner69]

One last time "science guy" or whoever you claim to be:

You want to go off on tangents to stroke yourself, have a ball

My only point was my rejection of "I have degrees" types writing on subjects not within their supposed realm of experience. Like MD's going on about firearms. Their degree does not grant them superpowers.

Like "Science Guy". From what I have read, he is a mechanical engineer that never really practiced his profession, but found showmanship was a lucrative gig.

Run into too many that read up a bit on something and then want to argue about the topic as if they spent a career doing it. This guy may well have some extra-curricular training, but it is not evident from his "degrees"

I sure as heck do not know about the probability of life elsewhere, never said I knew a thing about it. You decided to try and shove that on me.

Now, go away and fight your little FR battles that I see you revel in from your posts.

[papertyger]

My only point was my rejection of "I have degrees" types writing on subjects not within their supposed realm of experience.

You HAVE no point.

First, because this paper was accepted for publication in a respected, peer reviewed, journal, so obviously Cornell isn’t as ignorant of the applicability of the authors’ academic “chops” as you are. Just because YOU don’t know the difference between an academic publication and the National Enquirer doesn’t mean others are so benighted.

Also, you don’t KNOW what their experiences entail. Borrowing from your own witless doctor analogy, Martin Fackler was one of the most respected and published experts on wound ballistics ever, and he was a surgeon. Do you think his expertise came from studying patients in his operating room?

I sure as heck do not know about the probability of life elsewhere, never said I knew a thing about it. You decided to try and shove that on me.

That’s because you questioning the authors’ credentials to write on the subject is as vacuous as claiming men should have no say on abortion. Do you think they hand out degrees in “Alien Life” somewhere?

Besides, I already TOLD you how at least one of the author’s field of study applied, but you decided to fight over your right to express an ignorant opinion instead of refuting anything that was actually written IN THE PAPER.

Frankly, I could care less what you don’t like, if you’re going to question educated people’s published opinion, and don’t want to be challenged, make sure it’s an educated question.

[Williams]

Dear FR friend. There is no definitive study on the probability of life elsewhere in the universe because no one has observed such life or its absence anywhere else, yet, and no one has been able to duplicate to any significant degree the “spark of life” which apparently occurred here on earth. However, it is notable that within very recent history scientists debated the probability of exo solar planets and many determined that there was a high probability that no other systems had planets, or that the occurrence of planets was very rare. You are quite correct that I am not an astro-physicist or a biologist or even a mathematician. However, we all can apply common sense and what received knowledge we have to arrive at our own opinion regarding the “probability” that a scientific theory is correct. As you know, we now realize the probability is for the existence of billions of exo solar planets. You can tell me I’m looking in the “wrong direction” but as a starting point, to discuss exo solar life we have to have exo solar planets. I’m merely pointing out to you that a few years back the work of these scientists might be a non starter if it was believed there were no exo planets. Now we know there are billions (most likely). Therefore we expect billions of exo planets in habitable zones of their stars. I submit to you that the scientists producing this report lack a reasonable basis for the accuracy of their probability analysis, because just as we now know previous assumptions about exo planets were based on inadequate knowledge, I submit there is a lack of knowledge presently regarding how and how often self replicating life occurs throughout the universe. Further, I pointed out that the authors for all their scientific credentials wrote a description of their work which refers to the lifeless conditions we observe everywhere. I noted that our main observations of life are right here on earth, and further, no one expected that the other solar planets presently harbor life. As regards exo planets we absolutely don’t have data on the occurrence of life on exo planets in habitable zones therefore I conclude the authors’ statement that we observe an absence of life everywhere else in the universe to reflect exactly the type of unscientific, out of their field guesswork to which you so strongly object. Their statement as to observation of life or its absence elsewhere, which they stated was the observation they were comparing to their probability study, was meaningless. This would have been like Christopher Columbus stating Pre 1492 that he was sure there were no inhabitants in the New Worlds he wished to discover, and that this comported with our lack of observation of such inhabitants, there having been no such observations one way or the other. Finally, reference to “Von Neumann” usually refers to self replicating machines or software. Of course you can apply the concept to biological entities, but we did not need Von Neumann to know biological entities are self replicating therefore the concept behind his work was never intended to be applied to biological entities or the manner or probability that they come into (initial) existence.

[Williams]

As to the specific reference I am discussing: “The abstract for the paper states that the conflict between the apparently lifeless universe that we observe and the Drake equation, ....”

No, I’m not going to read the entire paper. Let me know if you have so we can be further enlightened.

BTW I have no problem accepting the validity of a probability study showing that life elsewhere is unlikely, if indeed the study is valid. Based on current knowledge I question the likelihood of the study being an accurate reflection of actual unobserved reality.

[doorgunner69]

Go hump someone else’s leg science guy, you have some serious issues I want nothing to do with. Go take your endless angst out on others, I am done with pompous fools like you.