A new model shows how the spread of ET civilisations can undergo phase changes, providing a deeper insights into the Fermi Paradox
In 1950, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi raised the question that now bears his name. If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?
Since then, the so-called Fermi Paradox has puzzled astronomers and science fiction writers alike. And although there are no shortage of ways to approach the problem (this blog has covered them here and here for example), nobody has come up with a convincing explanation. .
Now there is another take on the problem thanks to a new approach by Igor Bezsudnov and Andrey Snarskii at the National Technical University of Ukraine.
Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.
In certain circumstances, however, when civilisations are close enough together in time and space, they can come into contact and when this happens the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures allows them both to flourish in a way that increases their combined lifespan.
Bezsudnov and Snarskii point out that this process of spreading into space can be easily modelled using a cellular automaton. And they've gone ahead and created their own universe using a 10,000 x 10,000 cell automaton running over 320,000 steps.
The parameters that govern the evolution of this universe are simple: the probability of a civilisation forming, the usual lifespan of such a civilisation and the extra bonus time civilisations get when they meet.
The result gives a new insight into the Fermi Paradox. Bezsudnov and Snarskii say that for certain values of these parameters, the universe undergoes a phase change from one in which civilisations tend not to meet and spread into one in which the entire universe tends to become civilised as different groups meet and spread.
Bezsudnov and Snarskii even derive an inequality that a universe must satisfy to become civilised. This, they say, is analogous to the famous Drake equation which attempts to quantify the number of other contactable civilisations in the universe right now.
The question of course is what kind of universe do we live in: are the parameters here ripe for the evolution of a single cosmic civilisation or are we condemned to be forever alone?
Bezsudnov and Snarskii say there's only one way to find out: wait and see.
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1007.2774: Where Is Everybody? - Wait A Moment... New Approach To The Fermi Paradox
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
So, what these people are contemplating is not a collapse of civilisation, but a genocide of an entire intelligent species. What would cause that? What ->could<- cause the extinction of an entire species that has already colonised multiple star systems? What, they all just up and decide to drink the Kool-aid?
Imagine humanity that has colonised multiple star systems... now imaging how much work it would be to exterminate them, to actually end the advance of humanity for millions of years. Sure, advanced weapons that can destroy entire suns... also means advanced tools for survival. We're talking about a war where -> Everyone <- dies? I don't think so. Even if 99.999% of humans were killed and those left were bombed back to the stone-age, that's, what, a 6,000 year setback? So?
Once an intelligent species starts colonising the galaxy, assuming a 25,000 year travel time between star systems (less if we get to faster than light) and that each colonised star then goes on to colonise at least 2 more, that species will be everywhere in the galaxy in about a million years. What's losing 6,000 years to a mere civilisation hiccup?
I think the (edit:) Fermi Paradox stands.
Either
* we're the first,
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2008/12/we-are-alone.html
* or the "others" are already here but don't want to talk to us,
* or there is some prohibition on interstellar travel that we don't know about,
* or we all live in a virtual-reality game.
http://fixerdave.blogspot.com/2007/01/arcade-philosophy-philosophy-can-be.html
fixerdave
07/26/2010
Posts:17
Here is a link I would like to share with you of my past experiences in this life:
http://timetravelingspirits.blogspot.com/2010/07/time-traveling-spirits.html?
DouglasBue...
07/26/2010
Posts:1
gerardomar...
07/26/2010
Posts:4
I agree with you that humanity would be a lot harder to kill off if it were distributed across more than one star system (although calling it "humanity" in the aggregate seems tricky, inasmuch as the two groups would diverge and perhaps be mutually incomprehensible and infertile within a few hundred thousand years).
But how that is ever to be achieved, I cannot imagine. The stars are just too damn far away. The very nearest star is 4 ly, and it would be a big surprise if the nearest star with a habitable planet, active but harmless ecology and no intelligent inhabitants already in possession is less than 100 ly.
How are we ever to cross a gap of 100 ly in person? The product of energy and time required seems far beyond our lifespan, attention span, or conceivable energy resources. Well might a colony of ants contemplate a trans-Atlantic voyage against a headwind.
cgrayce
07/26/2010
Posts:2
And, then Skynet exists, effectively our descendants. Will Skynet not then send out its descendants to colonize the galaxy?
I should point out that I'm using the term 'we' very loosely. Obviously, we won't be colonizing any star systems, we'll be dead. However, our descendants will likely make that trip. Now, our descendants are more likely than not to be our robotic creations rather than us. I don't have much hope for biological humans, at least as we know them, to survive for too many more generations. We'll either be mucking with our own biology or just giving up on it fairly soon. The next phase of human evolution will be closer to engineering.
Now, to our engineered descendants (biological or robotic), within a few thousand years it seems pretty clear that they will be next to immortal. Once effectively immortal, what's a 100 year trip? A 1,000 year trip? 20,000 years? If it took 20,000 years to make it to the next star system and another 5,000 years to build up enough infrastructure to begin another colonizing trip or two, that's still only 25,000 years. As I've said before, at 25,000 year intervals, we'll be everywhere in our Galaxy within 1,000,000 years. On galactic timescales, a million years is pretty short.
Your ant analogy is actually quite telling. They are here, and just about everywhere else. How? They walked, and I'm sure it took a long, long time. I'm saying that even if our descendants have to walk, to travel sub-light, they will eventually get there, everywhere. It's only a matter of time.
And, to bring this back on track. Why aren't 'they' here already? Surely, other planets with intelligent species have evolved before us, millions or even billions of years ago. Why aren't they here?
fixerdave
07/26/2010
Posts:17
We really live in a fantastic hallucinated world. Please keep staying high. We do not need any drug to get high. Contemporary physics will keep you high. How wonderful! Mad house indeed. Just leave tax payers alone.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/26/2010
Posts:420
One article, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/why_we_havent_met_any_aliens/, answers the question similarly. The chances of two technologically similar civilizations establishing communication and spurring space travel innovation BEFORE getting lost in the allure of simulation is extremely low. There is a very tiny window where that can happen.
I am also a fan of the "seed the galaxy" scenario where advanced civilizations, never able to overcome space travel, just hurl "life stuff" at earth like planets. Human life continues endlessly but planets never meet.
I've always had a hard time imagining civilizations advanced enough to travel through space keeping us alive but in the dark about life in the rest of the universe. Why would Earth's resources be so insignificant to not be worth the trip to extract them, but worth their time/money to actively prevent us from discovering the existence of life on other planets?
I also find it difficult to believe that, given the laws of physics, information encoding/decoding would be so fundamentally unique between planets that communication would be incompatible. If we can filter the "noise" to find 14 billion year old patterns in background radiation, and other civilizations can do the same, we should be able to communicate.
jcmoonrake...
07/26/2010
Posts:2
Let's make that assumption, that most or even all civilizations go virtual - they exist as information in unimaginably-advanced computers. But, you know, it really doesn't change anything.
Virtual communities still require real physical resources. They need power, they need material. All that information has to be encoded in something, movement (even of information) requires power.
Thus, just like in the real world, some virtual communities will live within their resource limits, not expanding. However, some will not, they will continue to grow and, eventually, they will exceed the resources of their entire solar system. Yes, that might take a long time.
If a virtual community must interact with the physical world to utilize resources, does it matter if they are virtual? It's actually more likely that a virtual community would take to colonizing other solar systems. The travel between systems, even if agonizingly slow, would be irrelevant, so long as they could maintain power during the trip.
"Why would Earth's resources be so insignificant to not be worth the trip to extract them, but worth their time/money to actively prevent us from discovering the existence of life on other planets?"
Now, this I find quite intriguing. It's a very good question. I'm of the opinion that once a species (flesh or mechanical) has managed to get off a planet and out into space, the last thing they're going to want to do is come back down to some slimly little corrosive cesspool at the bottom of a gravity well, especially one that has a nasty nuclear-armed bio-film like ours. Yet, I assume that 'they' don't want us to leave.
I suppose, if you view the resources of a solar system, minerals from asteroids, hydrocarbons from places like Titan, water as ice, solar power... that's pretty much all available from much easier places to get to than some earth-sized planet. But, if we get off this ball, we will be competing against 'them' for these resources too. I guess I see us as rats, ignorable in our little slimy nest, but troublesome pests if we get out.
And, just for clarification, my "virtual reality" answer to the Fermi Paradox is that we exist as a game and the universe we see is a creation, a joke actually. Now, I wrote that piece as a commentary on religion, that if we're going to suppose supernatural things, we might as well go all the way. But, it does answer the paradox in that the real universe might be completely different than our poor astronomers think it is. Just maybe, right now, our virtual world is actually in a little tin can hurtling through interstellar space on some colonizing mission :) Or, maybe it's in the trunk of a taxi heading for the submarine, or maybe it's ...
fixerdave
07/26/2010
Posts:17
I am unable to conceive of how a civilization could practically transport human beings through the vastness of space. Simulation is an overwhelmingly better utilization of time and energy. In which case, is post-human a necessary condition for space colonization? Do all advanced civilizations end up as simulations since there is a greater chance an advanced computer (or perhaps in Kurzweil fashion, a series of increasingly intelligent computers) will make it to another solar system? Once it gets there, what does it do?
jcmoonrake...
07/26/2010
Posts:2
Secondly that we are the focus of the simulation. Carrying on from my first point, it's just as likely that we are an anomaly in the simulation. When anomalies are finally noticed, they are either ignored, or removed, depending on how they affect the main focus of the simulation.
gordonwh
07/27/2010
Posts:11
Another thought is that every sufficiently advanced civilization is tempted to understand the conditions that occurred during the inflationary phase of the big bang. To do this they try to recreate some key conditions and ... succeed beyond their wildest dreams. Every 10 billion years or so life evolves to gape in wonder at the inevitable results; ad infinitum.
Perhaps this counts as a "prohibition on interstellar travel we don't know about." The enforced social engineering fantasy of the "Day the Earth Stood Still" would be another type of prohibition with truly stultifying implications.
At any rate, it is quite possible that meat is not capable of evolving to a level that can sustain a universal or even merely galactic dispersion. Feynman was famous for his "plenty of room at the bottom" conception of nano-technology. Perhaps advanced civilizations forever unable to break the speed of light barrier evolve downwards into quantum beings inhabiting the higher winding numbers of our 11 dimensional string space.
I'd hate to think we were the first or only sentient life forms. The responsibility to not let the spark die out would be almost overwhelming.
rev289
07/27/2010
Posts:1
Then there's the phase-change to something completely different before becoming capable of interstellar travel. As a result, they have no interest in our Earthly (pun intended) plane.
I can agree that it is entirely likely that there exists, for lack of a better term, a super-reality where intelligence can operate free of what we think are constraints. This would be a new environment, if you will. Yet, if you think of it in evolutionary terms, the Childhood's End scenario where the children morph into this state is unlikely. Instead, it would be a speciation event, where some choose to, for example, upload their consciousness into this new state. However, the original habitat, the Earthly Realm, would still exist and not everyone would choose to leave it. The species would split in two, one staying with the old and one moving into the new habitat. Now, I could see how the species that chose to stay behind might decide that interstellar colonization isn't worth the bother... why walk when you can fly? Why slog between planets at sub-light when you could just upload to another dimension and have distance become irrelevant? It kind of makes the whole effort rather pointless. But, the question then becomes: are there enough species getting to this point where it becomes likely that one of them would choose to make this colonization effort anyway? If yes, then the Fermi Paradox stands. If no, then we've got an answer, or at least another alternative.
Actually, I think I'll add a number 5 to my list of possibilities. Phase-change to another plane of existence. The possibility that we become the first species to be so stubborn as to attempt interstellar colonization instead of just going the easy route is entirely possible. Certainly it is as possible as the other options.
I mean, if the stars are not for the strong nor the weak, but are there for the unfathomably stubborn, then they're there for humanity to seize, someday.
fixerdave
07/27/2010
Posts:17
mbloore
08/25/2010
Posts:31
Which is probably why we shouldnt waste the next few hundred thousand years...or while we still have our moon...
Its likely no communication from other races exists because they are using simple technologies that dont spread the signal (hence degradation) across the galaxy. When i shine a laser light it goes to one spot only. When i shine a uv,x-ray,gamma-ray or better laser it would still only go to one spot.
I personally believe its possible other races are listening...like us ...we are all listening yet we dont transmit coherent beams of information to every star system we see! We might radiate information in all directions thats so weak its no better than back ground radiation.
Its unlikely we are in a computer simulation, because of uncertainty principle. So if we cant determine the location, direction and charge all at the same time in our reality there is no way to make a simulation of it. A quantum computer can't help no matter what its size. Unless the simulation is purposely hiding information from us...which is more a philosophical question.
Its unlikely we are the only race that will exist in our time period if you like. So while we will meet other races at some point it may be a while.
Our civilisation is very very young yet we seem to think its a given we should have the answers today.
mattgroom
07/26/2010
Posts:198
This is such an example. The model is fully unrealistic, since if we start to migrate biospheres will deviate naturally by evolution as we can't economically and in the end physically keep up a trade in between. There will be no large scale civilizations as in the model (there they are "small scale").
What we need is to look at colonization.
Ironically, Hawkings' adoption of this paradox for time travelers is beautifully constrained, exactly because it is local. Too bad we don't need it to know that time travel won't work.
[Since, as per Aaronson, time travel pathways would collapse the computer science tower of complexity classes - and that isn't what we observe in the physical world. Though by a stretch one could claim that this prediction too uses the analogous environmental method.]
Another connection here is that no time travel at the same time means no remaining FTL "outs". So the paradox itself (or rather, its method) can be used to constrain it (or rather, its application on SETI). I'll have to chew on that for a while.
Torbjorn_L...
07/26/2010
Posts:74
rsanchez1
07/26/2010
Posts:134
Torbjorn_L...
07/28/2010
Posts:74
Such civilizations flourish - Egypt, Persia, Huns, Rome, Ottoman; Imperial China, Spanish conqustadores, British Empire, USSR, American expansionism. Invade, slaughter, exploit, subsume. They all died horribly because... it became fashionable to shed tears.
Civilizations end when the strong, smart, and productive are ground to hamburger to feed the weak, stupid and parasitic. Compassion is willful suicide. Rome fed its mobs rather than enslave or exterminate them. Spain lost the New World when brutal conquest became caretaking. The British lost India, unwilling to kill a million wogs to make the point. The most deadly and expensive military in the history of the world went social yellow-tail coward with Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iran, US-Mexican border. 1/3 of America is on social welfare, 3% are imprisoned. The nation is paralyzed, debating whether chickens and steers raised for slaughter spend full, rich, meaningful lives - defined by left-wing intellectuals whose only reality is defined by their equally corrupt peers. Ditto diversity for two-legged meats.
http://www.diversity.umich.edu/programs/
University of Michigan has 90+ diversity programs but not a single Gifted program.
If Terran skies open it won't be United Planets, it will be Klingons. OOO-rah! (Oh how the mighty have fallen - BAMs).
UncleAl
07/26/2010
Posts:91
xRedfox69x
07/26/2010
Posts:3
If you consider that we evolved to live in social communities because it offers mutual benefit, then it starts to look pretty stupid when we're asked to fight and die for our way of life. That JFK quote, something like: Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Why? From an evolutionary perspective this is complete garbage. I cooperate with the people around me for mutual benefit... that's the whole point.
No, nations/countries/religions are now evolving on their own, competing with their peers for survival in some kind of super-organism fashion. Along the way, they are using humanity to meet their ends, twisting our evolved village instincts to their benefit. We are being used. You are being used, extolled to OOO-Rah! status as your culture tries to survive in the face of competition from other cultures. To your culture, your life is something to be used, exploited. You call this civilisation?
Yes, competition between cultures has been a primary driving force of Earth's colonisation. But, it doesn't have to be the driving force of galactic colonisation. Actually, considering the time and distances involved, the spread of culture is likely not going to be a motive. We don't need OOO-Rah! any more. Honestly, I think we'd be better off without it.
Now, if during this expansion we smack into another species, then I'm all for the OOO-Rah! Starship Trooper culture... it beats being annihilated as a species. That's what we evolved for, when annihilation of our village meant we were all dead.
fixerdave
07/26/2010
Posts:17
Be very careful who you call "unproductive parasites". That class may include you.
Gary 7
gary7
07/27/2010
Posts:29
kwester5
07/26/2010
Posts:3
An advanced civilization requires the best of its best to function. The bottom 90% must be culled not coddled. A big civilization burns through local finite resources at horrendous rates. Server farms are multi-gigawatt enterprises, the waste heat of thought. A hybrid car contains 50 kg of lanthanides: batteries, motor magnets, etc. Those elements are neither abundant nor concentrated.
Unless an advanced civilization has external material inputs it will suddenly smother in its own wastes while starving. On a planetary scale, that is colonialism. When the planet fills, seize outward or die.
If we are "discovered" it won't be for social discourse. A small asteroid dropped into the Garbage Patch will tsunami the whole Pacific Rim 50-100 miles inland. Tweaking Apophis' orbit turns that trick. The Great Lakes need not persist. Puncture Yellowstone. The only resource Terra offers spacefaring competition is meat - labor, biochemicals, food. That's us, buster.
Either way, Earth is already dead - and that is no Paradox.
UncleAl
07/26/2010
Posts:91
For a distinct, but related view, head over the Charles Stross' blog. The recent discussion there was "How many people do you need to maintain a modern, first 21st century decade, level of civilization"
Apparently, the answer turns around 100 million people.
A modern civilization is incredibly complex. We tend not only to underestimate the number of highly specialized people we need to run this (your average MD will not make a good heart transplant surgeon. Not without a lot of training), but also the number of consumers we need to make those specialties a viable economic activity.
If you want to make a colony, either you need to transplant 100 million people, or you will have a colony that loses very quickly its standard of living. The "rugged but technologically advanced pioneers" of science fiction tropes are just that: science fiction. Put 1000 people somewhere, and they will very quickly revert to a pre-industrial life. Sure, they'll have libraries and whatnot. But they will not have the practical experience that goes with it. Wait for 2 or 3 generations, and their descendants will have a very hard time understanding what all those books/datastores are talking about.
If the world on which they are isn't perfect, those pre-industrial may die very fast at the first major problem. You do not have a functional bio-research establishment to try to cure a runaway plague until you have enough people to justify one.
So, yes: colonization is hard. We did it a lot of times on Earth because:
1) We had regular travel between colonies and home.
2) All those colonies were established as very pre-industrial levels.
3) The colonial "world" was perfect for us already.
varcher
07/26/2010
Posts:1
On the other hand, how fast could a civilisation bootstrap back to fully functional status if its Holy Book actually contained coherent methods and knowledge, instead of requiring endless interpretations? Imagine straight-out descriptions instead of mythic narratives, parts diagrams rather than contradictory explanations. Yes, a lot of knowledge can't be transmitted in a book, no matter how well written, but an intelligent species would be good at figuring things out, doubly so if they had knowledge of what's possible.
I can see failed colonisation attempts slowing down expansion, especially at the beginning, but again that still doesn't stop expansion, it doesn't explain why they're not already here.
fixerdave
07/26/2010
Posts:17
Apart from building the entire infrastructure, id say the problem could be this:
1. Governments give business to private enterprises, because they run out of money from massive debts.
2. Private enterprises build ships, stations and colonise.
3. Radiation makes race infertile and race birthrate slows to near 0.
Hence every civilisation must stay near its home planet and can never venture further...sorry about this concept, buts its as plausible as any other.
I just have a feeling that living and expansion in space is Really, Really hard for the million reasons we know but most probably the ones we dont know..
mattgroom
07/27/2010
Posts:198
On the other hand, our mechanical descendants could make the trip. so, we speciate. The mech-forms becomes colonizers and leave, the bio-form stays behind. Then, we're right back at the Fermi Paradox... where are the intelligent robot colonizers?
fixerdave
07/27/2010
Posts:17
That seems to happen a lot i notice.
The original conjecture remains no matter what form you are in. Even if the human race turned into pure energy and rocketed through space by farting, the conjecture remains.
The conjecture is its rally hard to live and expand in space not necessarily for the reasons we know but most likely for the reasons we dont know.
If we take the paradox at face value, the only true answer to the paradox is something is harder to achieve than the equations seems to belie.
My proposal is that the problem is in the area of living and expansion. I believe this will affect all life-forms. Indeed if evolution is anything to go by the other life-forms will be different to ours and therefore unlikely to have our requirements.
Lets assume your concept, its just a matter of time and the time has passed. You have just disproved your own concept in one go. So why peddle a concept that is wrong?
mattgroom
07/30/2010
Posts:198
It was their hero Oxford Prof. Roger Penrose who said, in defense of Einstein's SR, that when we learn that a civilisation at Andromeda decided to attack our solar system, they might well not have decided it yet.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/26/2010
Posts:420
Note the burning of crops to maintain price levels while simultaneously observing impoverished hunger leading to death. Note the "Shock and Awe" campaign from bad intelligence claiming WMDs that killed over 40,000 civilians (the largest death toll from conventional weapons in a three day period since Dresden). Note the pricing of pharmaceuticals so that sick people die from a lack of cash flow.
At this stage of our development, who would objectively call us "civilized"?
Organized? Certainly. Civilized? No. Dangerous? Absolutely.
frankie12
07/26/2010
Posts:1
We strive for the best standard of living as possible, to that end when the weak, the dimwitted, the self absorbed, and the criminally minded among us, i.e. the unproductive class out number the productive class society spirals downward under the weight of it's corruption. Think of the movie Idiocracy. It sounds cruel to put it that way, however, all societies are built by the labors of the productive. As soon as life gets too easy allowing the unproductive class to multiply, the productive are excessively burdened to the point they can no longer sustain the demands. The Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own corruption and is a modern example of what happens to any society that becomes unsustainable. The British Empire is another good example of a downward spiral, just more slowly and illustrates point #2 about growth. Prior to the modern era, those civilizations that died did so by the combination of internal corruption and external force by invasion. I suspect these people who are doing the computer programs have not factored the nature of corruption into their programs.
The only way a civilization stays sustainable is to perpetually devise ways to limit the growth of the unproductive, hopefully through civilized means without resorting to culling. You have heard the cynical talk of contaminating the gene pool and those who voluntarily via their actions delete themselves. All actions have consequences and those who refuse to live by the rules of cause and effect are self culled by effect, civilizations are no different.
dscott
07/27/2010
Posts:1
I do not know what you are talking about. I do not know what astro-bilolgy people are talking about.
It is my impression that for physicist relativity theory never fails.
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/27/2010
Posts:420
And because they have moved further/faster there clocks are slower than ours,or if they are closer they are faster.
So while at their present time they are saying lets attack earth, On earth the equivalent time has not happened yet.
However youre right, both events are happening at the same time...just that they appear in two time-frames.
ill try to make a pic.
C -> E -> A ->
3 2 1
or
C -> A -> E ->
3 2 1
-> = expansion, C= centre, E=earth
As the universe is expanding, hence gettign faster those in A are moving away faster hence there clocks are moving slower.
While talking at the same time the clocks are different.
So if A says at time 2 that they will attack earth, Earth is at time 1. So technically the time period for earth has not happened yet even though it is.
If it were possible to chat from E at time 1 to A
at time 2, at the same time you would have the conversation in an ordered linear fashion. Both people would be talking in the present, however it would appear to E that A was in the future and it would appear to A that E was in the past.
However the future is only really affecting the present, so you can see time travel is possible but only to the present.
The past, present and future exist at the same time if you wish it is how our universe works. We just perceive it as "ALL" linear hence we get confused when things like that are explained.
The whole universe is moving at different pace/times, consider each particle as moving in at a different pace hence having its own time. Just becuase 2 particles are next to each other or bonded doesnt mean they are exactly the same age.
I propose no 2 particles in the universe have the same age.
Hopefully my expansion on relatvity helps!
mattgroom
07/30/2010
Posts:198
If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?
Better question is in my view:
Why don’t they make contact?
In my opinion there is some sort of a UNIVERSAL LAW, which says: each planet should be able to be free to choose and evolve into a society based on love or hatred.
In other words: we must be free to evolve into a society based on social equality for all and mutual understanding and love or a society based on the prevalence of a small group able to keep the majority in slavery conditions.
Why should this be?
Because the universe is in its basic conditions symmetric, with the ultimate consequence that there should be copy universe based on anti-matter and clocks which run the other way around.
See;
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Do we see signs of them? Of course!
We are blind, because we see them but do not dare to admit that they are here already.
Why because we don’t know how aggressive or friendly they will react.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBwG9VoTCFM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdyQu5Zx8xw&feature=related
Leo Vuyk.
Leo Vuyk
07/27/2010
Posts:2
They zoom around in their spaceships,
And cause such a fuss,
Plus their nasty little rayguns,
Could reduce us to dust.
luddite
07/27/2010
Posts:90
It would be strange to suppose that this life existed only to colonise this planet. IMHO, life is reiterated until one particular incarnation or organism if you will, finds the ability to spread somewhere that is not of this planet.
We have finite resources, the clock is ticking. Either we as a people waste time and energy on this years Dodge Viper/HD TV/war/hairstyle, or we use those resources wisely in an attempt to break out of this soon-to-be husk.
Unfortunately, after observing the human race for 40 odd years, I have a horrible feeling that as soon as we discover a means to propel large numbers of people into space on a meaningful trajectory, either Sodd or Murphy will ensure that that will be the moment when we find we have used the last of the required raw material on some frivolous crap.
That's why I put my faith in AI. More specifically, such an advanced AI that we can somehow transfer human minds into the system, and basically become almost pure energy based life forms. Then the universe is our oyster.
Dreaming ? Maybe, but we all know the physical restrictions on space travel, so that seems to be a non-starter, unless we are prepared to create "generation ships".
To be honest I think the Indians or the Chinese will be the first to make some kind of move. They have to do something, as they will very soon comprise most of the population of the planet. Good luck to them.
smoker
07/27/2010
Posts:6
you seem to be not convinced that ZPE energy wil play an important role in the future?
see:
Examples of macroscopic Casimir energy (ZPE) effects.
http://bigbang-entanglement.blogspot.com/
Leo Vuyk
07/28/2010
Posts:2
(1) Intelligent life is very rare, and probably only occurs at the rims of galaxies. As you go deeper towards the cores of galaxies the density of stars increases, as does your chance of being irradiated by an exploding supernova. If life gets flash fried every million years or so the odds of it developing complex multi-celled life goes way, way, down.
(2) Interstellar travel for carbon-based lifeforms may not be practical at all. If you travel slow cosmic rays will, over time, chew up your DNA. If you travel fast at a good fraction of light speed the interstellar hydrogen will do the same thing to you. The shielding needed to protect from this may require a vehicle about the size of Europa. How many civilizations will be willing to do that?
(3) It probably demonstrates that faster than light travel is impossible or impractical.
(4) If you have the technology to travel to another solar system it may make it unlikely that you would wish to expend your resources in that manner. The kind of energy it would take to build and propel a starship might be better spent in extracting materials from the local gas giants and turning it into orbital habitats.
(5) There may be the equivalent of Fred Saberhagens <b>Berserkers</b> out there, Von Neumann machines that destroy any life that rises to any technical level, built by a race long extinct, coming soon to the planet Earth.
Tcobb
07/27/2010
Posts:1
z0rr0
07/27/2010
Posts:70
Best regards,
AKT
AKT
07/27/2010
Posts:420
Assuming a civilization lasts 1 million years and obtains mastery over the laws of physics, what is the probability that Civilization A's 1,000,000 year lifespan will overlap with Civilization B's 1,000,000 year lifespan? I'm no mathematician but isn't it something on the order of 1 / 13.75 ±0.17 billion (if current theory and observations are correct in suggesting that the universe is 13.75 ±0.17 billion years old) or over 1/13,750,000,000? I think it's more exponential because the two civilizations not only have to overlap in their existences, but overlap at a critical point in their technology that allows travel between their worlds.
I suspect that many great and illustrious civilizations have risen and fallen, and enjoyed this overlap. Just because we're an outlier, numerically distant in time proximity from the rest of the civilizations that have and will come into existence before this particular universe ceases to exist, does not mean that other civilizations have not overlapped at critical junctures in their development, and flourished for millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of years! The dinosaur lived for hundreds of millions of years without any technology.
I also suspect that we might have just missed one great civilization existing perhaps over the course of a billion years, or one about to come into existence, by just a few million years, like two ships passing in the night. It's also quite possible that WE, humanity, are the "embryo" of a great civilization that is about to rise into splendor, and could last as long.
The probability of overlapping with another such great civilization is still remote. Of course, overlap is irrelevant if proximity in distance is too far.
Netizen
07/27/2010
Posts:69
Once you get past the point of assuming intelligent life somehow has an expiry date (and I see no logical reason why it would) then the whole "we missed them" hypothesis goes out the window.
Yes, some, maybe even most species just won't bother to colonize other star systems. As others have mentioned, it's hard to do. But, in the billions of years this galaxy has existed, one species, somewhere, must have done it, and continued to do it.
Evolution is a race to fill habitat. The first species to do it takes that space and makes it much harder for the next species to thrive. The first species to really go at colonizing interstellar space will spread to fill the entire galaxy in about 1 million years.
Why would such a species go extinct? All the examples we have are either from environment changes or by being replaced with something more fit. If you view intelligence as a survival niche, then there will be room for an intelligent species, until the environment changes such that they can no longer survive - which in this case it becomes a reason to colonize interstellar space, or they are replaced by something more intelligent - and even more capable of colonizing. Sure, I can see "civilization collapse" slowing the process down, a lot of organizing is required for sending out colonies, but any intelligent - species, machines, whatever - will reorganize soon enough. Faster than a blink on a galactic timescale.
If you give up on assuming that species will just up and die, completely - without being replaced by something more fit, then the Fermi Paradox stands. Why aren't they already here?
fixerdave
07/27/2010
Posts:17
cheers
snedunuri
08/04/2010
Posts:52
It seems to me that over the years there have been enough observations and incidents concerning alien visits or activities on Earth, reported by enough credible witnesses, that to insist that there is no evidence is somewhat reminiscent of our feathered friend the Ostrich...
mvardon
07/29/2010
Posts:1
phyvyn
08/30/2010
Posts:12
Is it hard to imagine that with Time and space expanding (allegdly) that the background radiation would move backwrds down the spectrum?
If so we have been looking at the galaxy/universe all wrong. Where in fact we see no communication, there is in fact a whole universe of communication!
We are not alone, we just never saw it before.
If so the fermi paradox is somewhat moot.
mattgroom
07/30/2010
Posts:198
It is also possible for a cilvilsation to emerge at the outer edge of the universe and take forever to grow.
You could then conclude the fermi paradox is in direct violation of relativity, so therefore disproves itself.
mattgroom
08/01/2010
Posts:198
Just like most, I grew up reading sci-fi and would love to have visitors demand, "Take me to your leader!" Fermi's Paradox makes this unlikely.
Phineas
08/09/2010
Posts:111
But this does not mean that extraterrestrial societies exist among the stars- think of this; what are the odds that life formed on another planet in the same way it did here? If so, what are the odds that life seperated into a sustained ecosystem? Each organism having something to feed on? What are the odds that this ecosystem would flurish? That the ecosystem would not be destroyed by some cataclysm? That some species would evolve to intelligence out of it? That it would discover flight? Space flight? Interstellar travel? All this happening twice?
The odds of it happening once for us is unfathomable. Twice is rediculous. If you believe in a finite universe, then this is proof that 'aliens' do not exist, at least not in the visitation sense. If you believe in an infinate universe, then go ahead and believe! Because not only do Aliens exist, but so does the Flying Dutchman, and somewhere in the exhausted probability of infinate space, it is also captained by Paul Giomatti!
Danielevel...
08/10/2010
Posts:25
Consider for example that bikers A and B run in parallel on a road at the same speed. A send a light signal towards B. From biker's perspective B receives the signal. But from the perspective of the road, the light signal misses as B moves on.
I am quite sure that MIT and Cornell physics departments will not teach this to their students who pay huge amount of tuition fee. In these days, business is (a fallen?) king and it dominates even physics. It used to be that what funded physical research was the "greed" for prestige of ruling monarchs. I trust that it was better for the integrity and honesty of science. Sorry, I should be kinder to MIT, I understand that most physicists in MIT do not even want to talk about it anymore. Many renown physicists from MIT told me privately that they think that relativity theory is an embarrassment to theoretical physics. Is this Nazi Germany or Maoist China? Many physicists are scared of coming forward with what they really know or think.
It is already a published fact that for academic physicists, criticising Relativity Theory meant academic suicide.
AKT
AKT
08/10/2010
Posts:420
This doesn't answer the Fermi Paradox but actually makes it worse. IF nanoreplicators are possible, then this sort of seeding the galaxy should already be well along. We should be seeing visitors, nanoreplicator-created copies of the original, appearing here. We don't. We also don't see nonbiological explorers (nanoreplicators build robot/AI explorers instead of building their creator's biological copy).
But then, what would be the point of exploring in this manner? Nothing goes back to homeworld because they are all long dead and the bioreplicant right here is a dead end, soon to die. Nothing is gained on their end at all.
Oh well, carry on. No one is here or anywhere else because there's no upside to doing so. By the time your explorer gets anywhere, be it biological or robotic, those who sent it are long gone and the civilization that sent it off is likely also drastically changed if not simply gone entirely.
praedor
08/26/2010
Posts:1
imagine if luminaries of the Phoenician civilization, ancient Greece, Old Egypt, the Ming dynasty raised the same question mirrored here, what would the discourse sound like....
Fermi was perhaps an early pioneer that showed a way to take advantage of natural phenomenon, and use it beyond terrestial ways and means, instead of a praire schooner, someday we'll need galactic schooners, same hardships and challengers faced on worldly frontiers. time posesses stillness to gaze at night skies and be naive,
sophism is a mood swing, we have a way to go....
Asclaepius
08/27/2010
Posts:24