I’ve been looking at pictures from the Hubble telescope lately and thinking about the huge number of stars in the universe. I found myself wondering how life on Earth fits into the context of such vastness.
At this point in history, it feels pretty lonely out here. No aliens coming to invade us, no other planets to talk to, not even a Facebook message from another galaxy. The closest thing we’ve got to a sign of neighboring life is a few trickles of water on Mars.
If Earth were truly the only planet in the universe with life, how special would that make us, exactly?
I decided to take a closer look at the question in an interactive essay.
Visit 78 Coins: Why We’re Probably Not Alone in the Universe
what a fantastic experience! and a brilliant ending. I love these interactive essays of yours! what a healthy dose of good-natured humour and humility.
what a fantastic experience! and a brilliant ending. I love these interactive essays of yours! what a healthy dose of good-natured humour and humility.
There is a big, big hole in this argument! Coin tosses are random and the author’s logic applies to that environment.
You must use something similar to the “Drake Equation” for an educated guess as to how many stars have planets with life. In rough terms it goes like this: number of stars x percent of stars with planets x percent of stars that live long enough for biological evolution x percent of planets in habitle zones x this factor x that factor = planets with biological systems.
Depending on your assumptions for all of the factors the answer can range from zero plants to millions of planets.
GREAT STOERY AND GRAPHICS, BUT LOUSY SCIENCE :-(
Thanks for reading and commenting, but it seems like maybe you weren’t really following along. I’m not speculating on how many other planets have life, just using the coin flips to point out how incredibly unlikely it would be for the answer to be 0. NASA’s estimate of stars with planets in a habitable zone was enough to illustrate the point. The Drake equation is actually a way to estimate how many intelligent lifeforms in the Milky Way might have the ability to communicate with us – which is a whole other discussion.
P.S. Here’s your frowny face back. :)
There is a big, big hole in this argument! Coin tosses are random and the author’s logic applies to that environment.
You must use something similar to the “Drake Equation” for an educated guess as to how many stars have planets with life. In rough terms it goes like this: number of stars x percent of stars with planets x percent of stars that live long enough for biological evolution x percent of planets in habitle zones x this factor x that factor = planets with biological systems.
Depending on your assumptions for all of the factors the answer can range from zero plants to millions of planets.
GREAT STOERY AND GRAPHICS, BUT LOUSY SCIENCE :-(
I apologize if my frowny face offended tou– that was not my intent!
For your presentation you get four stars. Well done.
I still disagree with your example. It is great, though, we can disagree with friendly dialogue
I wish you the best. Don
I apologize if my frowny face offended tou– that was not my intent!
For your presentation you get four stars. Well done.
I still disagree with your example. It is great, though, we can disagree with friendly dialogue
I wish you the best. Don
Hi.
Is there another location in which this idea can be found?
This URL seems to be on the China blocklist.
Jon
Not at the moment. I’ll look into it. Thanks for letting me know.
Hi.
Is there another location in which this idea can be found?
This URL seems to be on the China blocklist.
Jon
Not at the moment. I’ll look into it. Thanks for letting me know.
Lovelly, beutifull, smart, kind, nice, and so on.
And your answers show how you are near of a tive stars person.
Please, be happy.
Lovelly, beutifull, smart, kind, nice, and so on.
And your answers show how you are near of a tive stars person.
Please, be happy.
This is really, REALLY, well done, gave me chills, thanks.
This is really, REALLY, well done, gave me chills, thanks.
Great presentation! I like the code by the way, although it would be funny if you had an easter egg in case someone managed to get all tails in the middle of it.
maybe there is…. but there’s only a one in sextillion chance of ever seeing it!
I checked it by editing the js code. Sadly, no easter egg :(
Great presentation! I like the code by the way, although it would be funny if you had an easter egg in case someone managed to get all tails in the middle of it.
maybe there is…. but there’s only a one in sextillion chance of ever seeing it!
I checked it by editing the js code. Sadly, no easter egg :(
Great read and creative presentation. What gives me pause is the jump from RNA to life. That’s a big ol’ jump. Calling RNA life is like ordering a hamburger for lunch and being served a photo of a hamburger. A black and white photo.
The problem with phrases like “chances are good” is that life has only spontaneously happened once that we know of. And we weren’t there to see it. And we can’t seem to make it happen again despite having all the ingredients we need. All but one ingredient, that is. And it’s that secret ingredient that makes it impossible to determine the probability of it happening again.
This assessment is based on the idea that “living organisms are the result of the gradual, natural movement of molecules following the basic rules of physics and chemistry…” Sure, that makes sense, but unfortunately it hasn’t been witnessed yet. There’s a big “censored” bar covering the section in between RNA and life. For all we know we still need that lightning and meteor or even that singing angel at some point along the line. As long as that variable is there, all we can do is calculate how many planets have MOST of what we need. But even that is no help when attempting to figure out the probability of life because we can’t know how often our mystery variable will show up.
I think there is life out there. I don’t know why. Maybe the same thing that makes some people want to feel special in the universe makes others want to believe we’re not alone. But I don’t think we have enough information to make the statement “chances are good.” Not yet anyway.
Great read and creative presentation. What gives me pause is the jump from RNA to life. That’s a big ol’ jump. Calling RNA life is like ordering a hamburger for lunch and being served a photo of a hamburger. A black and white photo.
The problem with phrases like “chances are good” is that life has only spontaneously happened once that we know of. And we weren’t there to see it. And we can’t seem to make it happen again despite having all the ingredients we need. All but one ingredient, that is. And it’s that secret ingredient that makes it impossible to determine the probability of it happening again.
This assessment is based on the idea that “living organisms are the result of the gradual, natural movement of molecules following the basic rules of physics and chemistry…” Sure, that makes sense, but unfortunately it hasn’t been witnessed yet. There’s a big “censored” bar covering the section in between RNA and life. For all we know we still need that lightning and meteor or even that singing angel at some point along the line. As long as that variable is there, all we can do is calculate how many planets have MOST of what we need. But even that is no help when attempting to figure out the probability of life because we can’t know how often our mystery variable will show up.
I think there is life out there. I don’t know why. Maybe the same thing that makes some people want to feel special in the universe makes others want to believe we’re not alone. But I don’t think we have enough information to make the statement “chances are good.” Not yet anyway.
Well put, Tony. Thanks for the thoughts. We certainly shouldn’t overlook the places where mysteries still exist. Even if the first steps in the life-making process aren’t particularly difficult to initiate, there are other steps that could require some x-factor that only exists here on earth.
Well put, Tony. Thanks for the thoughts. We certainly shouldn’t overlook the places where mysteries still exist. Even if the first steps in the life-making process aren’t particularly difficult to initiate, there are other steps that could require some x-factor that only exists here on earth.
Beautiful and brilliant essay. It is wonderful to know there are thought inspiring thinkers among us—kudos to the author and creator of this.
Beautiful and brilliant essay. It is wonderful to know there are thought inspiring thinkers among us—kudos to the author and creator of this.
Lovely and mind-opening. Certainly there is more “intelligent” “life” in the universe than we can shake a stick at. The coins tossed subtlety enforced each statement in your argument. But you might want to check out one careless error, an extra word “be.” Thanks for this, can’t wait to share.
Lovely and mind-opening. Certainly there is more “intelligent” “life” in the universe than we can shake a stick at. The coins tossed subtlety enforced each statement in your argument. But you might want to check out one careless error, an extra word “be.” Thanks for this, can’t wait to share.
I loved the ending to this, I was surprised!
I loved the ending to this, I was surprised!
I flipped 77 tails on the way through……..
I flipped 77 tails on the way through……..
It’s very tempting to imagine other life. Other intelligent life
But if there is and it’s not unreasonable for them to have quite a head start on us.
So where the hell are they
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
It’s very tempting to imagine other life. Other intelligent life
But if there is and it’s not unreasonable for them to have quite a head start on us.
So where the hell are they
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
You might also have mentioned that you are considering just carbon based life forms. There could be other inorganic life forms out there too, couldn’t they?
You might also have mentioned that you are considering just carbon based life forms. There could be other inorganic life forms out there too, couldn’t they?
Like I said in your “if the moon was the size of one pixel” presentation. I think that if there are other sentient races out there and not just “life” then they will be so far away that we can never contact them nor can they contact us. Being a ham radio operator I am quite familiar with the “double the distance, 1/4 the signal” situation. Even the best tightly focused laser beam spreads to 2 miles across by the time it reaches the moon. I’ve heard about people speculating on using the 21 cm band of frequencies to communicate over long distances because that is absorbed by the hydrogen floating in space but that very reason is why that would not work. Your signal would be absorbed as well.
I don’t believe there is any way for us or a hypothetical other sentient race to ever be able to send a signal that would rise above the base noise level across interstellar distances.
Speculating about non sentient life is pretty useless in my opinion as they or it could not communicate anyway. That’s why most people say “life” when they mean “sentient life”. Scientists don’t. You don’t. I see that from your replies to others.
Thanks for the presentation.
The last part… that was… a little… creepy…
Nice stuff… I`m not even an astronomic amateur, just a logic guy and there are two things that bothers me when this kind of probabilities are stated:
1-When we talk about probabilities about finding life, there is a very importatnt variable that i think is forgotten, that is time. Universe has 13 billion years, and life in earth (from start to extiotion) is less than 4 billion, this reduces pssibilities in almos 4 times. But when we thinks about INTELIGENT life, we talk about 60 MILLION years, so this reduces possibilities in more than 200 times
2-Is always considered our kind of life (hot water needed for example), but what if other kids of life may exist that not the ones we know??
Thanks for the insights Bruno. Just to clarify, I’m talking about any life at all, not just “intelligent” life or life that we might be able to communicate with.
You raise a good point about the time factor. Even when talking about the number of likely life-sustaining planets that currently exist, it gets confusing, since the light we’re using to detect those planets is already quite old. So do we wonder about life that exists right now from our time frame, or life that existed at the time the light started traveling to us? Either way though, signs of life started showing up on earth after only 3 million years. If we extrapolate from our one example (which is maybe not a great method) we can assume (sort of) that a life-sustaining planet is capable of harboring some form of life for most of it’s existence. So even if we factor in the time it takes for life to emerge on a currently-existing life-capable planet (without counting the ones that already came and went), it has such a small impact on the probabilities that the wild approximations in the essay still more-or-less hold up.
Regarding your second point – if there are other environments that produce something that still qualifies as “life” then our chances go up even more!