arXiv blog

The Drake Equation for the Multiverse

The famous Drake equation estimates the number of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way. A new approach asks how many might exist in the entire multiverse.

kfc 02/10/2010

  • 10 Comments


In 1960, the astronomer Frank Drake devised an equation for estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in our galaxy. He did it by breaking down the problem into a hierarchy of various factors.

He suggested that the total number of intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way depends first on the rate of star formation. He culled this number by estimating the fraction of these stars with rocky planets, the fraction of those planets that can and do support life and the fraction of these that go on to support intelligent life capable of communicating with us. The result is this equation:

which is explained in more detail in this Wikipedia entry.

Today, Marcelo Gleiser at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire points out that cosmology has moved on since the 1960s. One of the most provocative new ideas is that the universe we see is one of many, possibly one of an infinite number. One line of thinking is that the laws of physics may be very different in these universes and that carbon-based life could only have arisen in those where conditions were fine-tuned in a particular way. This is the anthropic principle.

Consequently, says Gleiser, the Drake Equation needs updating to take the multiverse and the extra factors it introduces into account.

He begins by considering the total set of universes in the multiverse and defines the subset in which the parameters and fundamental constants are compatible with the anthropic principle. This is the subset {c-cosmo}.

He then considers the subset of these universes in which astrophysical conditions are ripe for star and galaxy formation {c-astro}. Next he looks at the subset of these in which planets form that are capable of harbouring life {c-life}. And finally he defines the subset of these in which complex life actually arises {c-complex life}.

Then the conditions for complex life to emerge in a particular universe in the multiverse must satisfy the statement at the top of this post (where the composition symbol denotes 'together with').

But there's a problem: this is not an equation. To form a true Drake-like argument, Gleiser would need to assign probabilities to each of these sets allowing him to write an equation in which the assigned probabilities multiplied together, on one side of the equation, equal the fraction of universes where complex life emerges on the other side.

Here he comes up against one of the great problems of modern cosmology--that without evidence to back up their veracity, many ideas in modern cosmology are little more than philosophy. So assigning a probability to the fraction of universes in the multiverse in which the fundamental constants and laws satisfy the anthropic principle is not just hard, but almost impossible to formulate at all.

Take {c-cosmo} for example. Gleiser points out a few of the obvious parameters that would need to taken into account in deriving a probability. These are the vacuum energy density, matter-antimatter asymmetry, dark matter density, the couplings of the four fundamental forces and the masses of quarks and leptons so that hadrons and then nuclei can form after electroweak symmetry breaking. Try assigning a probability to that lot.

Neither is it much easier for {c-astro}. This needs to take into account the fact that heavy elements seem to be important for the emergence of life which only seem to occur in galaxies above a certain mass and in stars of a certain type and age. Estimating the probability of these conditions occurring is still beyond astronomers.

At first glance, the third set {c-life} ought to be easier to handle. This must take into account the planetary and chemical constraints on the formation of life. The presence of liquid water and various elements such as carbon, oxygen and nitrogen seem to be important as do more complex molecules. How common these conditions are, we don't yet know.

Finally there is {c-complex life}, which includes all the planetary factors that must coincide for complex life to emerge. These may include long term orbital stability, the presence of a magnetic field to protect delicate biomolecules, plate tectonics, a large moon and so on. That's not so easy to estimate either.

Many people have tried to put the numbers into Drake's equation. The estimates for the number of intelligent civilisations in the Milky Way ranges from one (ours) to countless tens of thousands. Drake himself put the number at 10.

Gleiser's take on the Drake equation for the Multiverse is an interesting approach. What it tells us, however, is that our limited understanding of the universe today does not allow us to make any reasonable estimate of the number of intelligent lifeforms in the multiverse (more than one). And given the limits on what we can ever know about other universes, it's likely that we'll never be able to do much better than that.

Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1002.1651: Drake Equation For the Multiverse: From String Landscape to Complex Life

TRSF: Read the Best New Science Fiction inspired by today’s emerging technologies.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

lasertekk

146 Comments

  • 733 Days Ago
  • 02/10/2010

what?  no....

You don't need a formula for this.  This is a multiverse discussion.  Just throwing the constant in there for an infinite number of multiverses will spit out an infinite result.  Wasn't that a Star Trek episode or something by the way?

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 733 Days Ago
  • 02/10/2010

Life's distribution

Based upon local evidence, one expects every water world (from -40 C for pore water to ~120 C under pressure) is scummed with biology.  What fraction of that abundance can do algebra?  SETI is eloquent: Within a 50 lightyear radius of Earth, 1400 star systems, exactly zero.

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/50lys.html

There are some 100 F,G,K classified stars within 50 ly radius, all of them being quiet.  The incidence of technological civlization in this timeframe is considerably less than 1%/star system for the very best candidates.

Reply

ncm

56 Comments

  • 733 Days Ago
  • 02/10/2010

The Drake Law

The Drake Law: Anyone who publishes a "Drake Equation" paper has self-identified as someone who can think of nothing worthwhile to do.  Likewise, anything involving any variation on an Anthropic Principle or indeed anything involving any sort of multiverse.

Reply

sunil.thakur

23 Comments

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

Paper rightly states....."Here he comes up against one of the great problems of modern cosmology--that without evidence to back up their veracity, many ideas in modern cosmology are little more than philosophy."

This is the reflection of state of affairs not only in cosmology but physics in general. We accept convenient and imaginary solutions to deal with our theoretical problem and now we have reached a stage where we need something that is fundamentally different than our current set of theories.

Problems has to be addressed at the fundamental level. We need a field that theory that defines the relationship of space with matter, time, motion, and allows for conservation of information.

Sunil Thakur
http://www.norlabs.org

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

Re: Aether Wave Theory

Describes Universe as a nested density fluctuations of hypothetical system, composed of colliding particles. Such system could be simulated only in it's entirety, not described by formal equations in usefull way. It's analogous to description of turbulent fluid, which remains completelly real physical system, albeit formal math cannot be applied to it.

Reply

Matthew Putman

37 Comments

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

Re:

This is a good point, especially as it concerns how non-scientist will come to understand what science is. When a pre-theory equation and a philosophy combine, it may have a better home in sci-fi than in published scientific journals. That said I think that you are being a bit harsh on all of physics. Even the most abstract and philosophical conceptions can make their way into practical physical applications. Though the multiverse is not so useful to nanomaterials, visualization provided by theory often gives us applied physicists a step towards concrete solutions, as they are formulated in the language of math and science.

Reply

ZephirAWT

299 Comments

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

Such articles are the result

of contemporary approach to physics, which allows publishing of things, which cannot be falsified in any way. It's just contemporary version of religion, comparable to discussions, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Should we pay physicists for such articles from public money?

Reply

Advertisement

mgleiser

1 Comment

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

response to some comments

Unfortunately, it seems that most of the commenters so far simply didn't read the paper at all. If they had, even if only the abstract, they would quickly realize that I am actually criticizing the status quo, in particular how anthropic arguments tend to be used in the scientific literature. I also would like to add that eq. 3 in the paper is a "Drake-like" equation in the sense that it shows the relevant fractions needed for complex life to exist. The main post focused on eq. 2 and ignored eq. 3. I was quick to add that such a construction can't be used to obtain real estimates for the simple fact that we don't know how to calculate such fractions. So, the manuscript is not another excursion into metaphysical arguments, but quite the opposite, a call for some sobriety!

I invite interested readers to visit my blog, hosted by NPR and in collaboration with 4 other colleagues: www.npr.org/blogs/13.7

Reply

Singularized

1 Comment

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

We need more

We need more of this kind of thinking, not less. The boundary between science, philosophy and science fiction keeps moving in all directions (I'm no MIT scientist, but I can google).

From my perspective as a layman, I wonder why we seem to always assume that intelligent life has to be carbon-based biological. Why couldn't there be somewhere some self-organizing silicon-based life form that evolved a level of intelligence at least comparable to ours in some acidic environment? Just because SETI is listening for "non-random" forms of radio signals doesn't mean we're not bombarded with communications we can't recognize as such. They may not be radio signals.

We have to give ourselves a break: our science and technology are barely getting ready for take-off. That's why we need more of this kind of exploration of the far boundaries of reason, so we know where to aim.

Reply

UncleAl

409 Comments

  • 732 Days Ago
  • 02/11/2010

Chemistry of life

Minimal life requires bulk retained information (genome), metabolism, and a solvent system.

Google Images
miller urey  13,500 hits

One cannot avoid light atom chemistry nor substitute natural or synthetic heavy atom chemistry.  Formal CPUs do not spontaneously form no matter what the composition; brains are messy.  Exotic energy regimes (e.g., neutron stars) are unrealistic re temperature and contingent entropy.  Tens of kelvins' (Saturns' moon Titan) chemical kinetics are damning.  Gas phase emulsion life (Jupiter's atmosphere) is not evident.  Galactic clouds are too large (signal propagation time) to be alive.

Human voice and music are linear flows of information.  If cetacean sounds reconstruct 3-D sonar images... haven't we been right bloody fools.  The life part is unambiguous.  No hortas.

Reply

Bio

The Physics arXiv Blog produces daily coverage of the best new ideas from an online forum called the Physics arXiv on which scientists post early versions of their latest ideas. Contact me at KentuckyFC @ arxivblog.com

Follow The Physics arXiv Blog on Twitter

Subscribe to the arXiv blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement