The Drake Equation, which is the standard currently used in astronomy when discussing the number of technological, intelligent civilizations now present in the galaxy...
(Rate of star formation, averaged over the lifetime of the Galaxy) X (Fraction of stars having planetary systems) X (Average number of habitable planets within those planetary systems) X (fraction of those habitable planets on which Life arises) X (fraction of those life bearing planets on which Intelligence arrises) X (fraction of those intelligent-life planets that develop Technological society) X (average lifetime of a technologically Competant civilization) = (Number of technological, intelligent civilizations now present in the galaxy)R ~ 10 stars per year
F ~ usually estimated at 1
A ~ ten years ago estimated at 1 in 10, our definition of habitable has been expanding as of late. We'll leave it at .1
L ~ Here it starts getting really debatable. Current accepted scientific practice has optimists setting this at 1 and religious nut bags at 0. I hate religious nut cases so we'll set it at 1 just to spite themI ~ Some people see intelligence as something special. Others see it as an inevitability given enough time. We'll split the difference with a .5
T ~ Personally I can't see how you can get I without it leading to T so we'll do 1
C ~ We haven't got a clue. Optimists believe that if you get enough I and T then C becomes a ray shooting forward to the end of time. Religious nut bags keep praying for Armageddon. We've currently gone a little over 100 years in a technological state without exterminating ourselves.
1 x .1 x 1 x .5 x 1 x C = N
(.05)C=N
If C=Armageddon Imminent, Global Warming Wipes Us out, or any other disaster scenario, then at best we can hope that N=5 which is us and a few others we will never meet. Of course if the riders of the apocalypse show up then the religious nut jobs are right and several of the other numbers must be lowered. Eventually N=close to 0 which sounds about right if Right Wing Christians have a monopoly on truth.
If C=Getting off the planet and colonizing first this solar system and then on to others until we spread as readily as a meth-whore's lips, then C approaches infinity and as long as you have a real number preceding it in the equation, then the galaxy is full of life and N=a Galaxy full of life just waiting for us to come out and play. We as humans will eventually be brought into the fold of the Galactic Civilizations where we will meet lots of cool alien life forms, introduce them to Barry White and cocktails, and fuck them.So we can actually have an impact on the equation. The longer we are around and the further we explore, the higher the value of N as known to us.
This equation only takes into account life within the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of at least billions, maybe a hell of a lot more.
And while most humans currently living on this planet will never fly an aircraft over Mongolia to observe goat herders (and even fewer will bring the Barry White and a mini-bar), a few will.
12 comments:
You know, this message led me to read the Drake article on Wikipedia. Relatively nice article.
That, in turn, led me to actually go and download BOINC. About bloody time... I've been meaning to do this for years. ...Not just for SETI@home, but also for Rosetta@home. ...More immediate benefits for that one. ; )
Anyway, I'll raise my glass to a long L.
Err... big C. I meant, here's to a big C.
Indeed, long C's all around, please.
Thank you Jake for a really top-notch explanation of the Drake equation. You even managed to be entertaining.
We should totally set up a "best of Repeated Expletives" - either a blog or just a page where we just repost or at least link to the best articles here. Frankly, I overproduce such immense chaff that the good stuff gets lost amidst the smoke screen I'm inadvertantly putting up around the really cool posts.
A relevant video on TED:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/freeman_dyson_says_let_s_look_for_life_in_the_outer_solar_system.html
Thanks, this is interesting stuff. I love thinking about these things, but I've always been a little confused- are we only looking for more of us? Why would we do that? I ask in my usual earnestly skeptical voice... It just seems to me that anthropic bias is vastly underestimated as a confound in this equation.
I mean, first, if we assume that a magical ratio of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc. kept under strictly controlled conditions is necessary to support the dynamic processes of life (as A & L does) we're excluding the possibility that other substances might, in similarly serendipitous circumstances, support another kind of dynamic system with a self-replicating process that might be considered "life."
Then, of course, our definition of intelligence seems, quite naturally, limited by our own, which is pretty sad, given that it's the often faulty result of a very long series of fortunate flukes. Is technology and destruction really the inevitable result of Intelligence? How else might it be defined? Purposefulness? Curiosity? Ability to adapt and learn?
I understand that these figures are, largely, arbitrary and for the purpose of creating pretty equations that result in real numbers. It's not nearly so fun when you increase the variables in such a way that makes them practically uncomputable. As usual, I suppose, I am just disappointed to be plagued by the limitations of our own understanding and imagination in such matters.
No doubt, though, they will all be united in appreciation of Barry White.
Becky...
I would agree that most of the equation is so vulnerable to the subjectivity of the user that it tends to render it useless except as a curiosity.
My astronomy instructor was a conservative who felt that which we label Global Warming was complete hokum and could be disregarded entirely yet could explain in fantastic detail the run-away greenhouse effect which may have caused Venus to become the way it currently is. His view was that there was near certainty of other life in the universe, other life in our galaxy was not impossible, but that life within in any sort of meaningful communication distance was an absurdity. He reasoned that the mathematical probability of such a planet with such life forms as could communicate with us was so astronomical that any such civilization would have died out before the signal they sent us saying "Hello!" would even be received. Since they would know this, they wouldn't even bother sending the signal.
I, on the other hand, see so many forms of unexplored communication potential within our own species that I often find it amusing when scientists insist on sending mathematical codes into space. While math is possibly the purest form of human communication I don't see how that guarantees some other culture would have developed the same obsession with it.
As such our understanding of life elsewhere in the galaxy is probably akin to a wild lemur's understanding of New Jersey. Even if they could theorize such a place existing, at best it would be filled with bizarre trees and strange lemurs.
I agree with both Becky and Jake. Becky is absolutely spot-on, IMO, that science is terrifically close-minded when it comes to imagining alternate forms of life and communication. To say that the search for life should only be to search for more beings to add to our Verizon Circle* is lame. Simply finding life out there--even minute, boring, self-replicating protein-like structures--would... wow, it makes the hair on my arms stand out. For me, it would be a validation that the universe is truly a creative force. If there isn't life out there... if it's just us, all alone... then I agree with Dyson (in the video above) that it would be our duty to go MAKE the universe live. I'd love to have the title "Progenitor". ;)
But I Believe.
That being the case, I also think that the equation is really just a tool. Its primary use, I think, is to justify the existence of organizations like SETI... though Sagan used it to promote environmentalism.
The context in which it was brought up was actually to argue against the probability that UFOs are traces of intelligent, relatively covert aliens.
Drake's equation tells a story, and--for me at least--it's a compelling one, and one that can be tweaked to suit many needs. But it's just a story. It's not truth.
* Or just another population to bring to Christ, perhaps? :| Or to sell them Coke? Or to LARP with, perhaps.
Thanks for the clarification. I especially appreciate the comparison to a wild lemur, though, to be fair to wild lemurs, I'm not sure if anyone really understands New Jersey.
Since change vs. constant is one of the universal governing factors of the universe, it seems reasonable on some level that math, or at least patterns, might be a useful medium to explore for the purpose of universal language. What else would we talk about?
Then again, we're limited by our own senses. It's fun to imagine how, if our perceptual system were tweaked to include a different visible light or audible sound spectrum, our experience would be vastly different.
But, again, we're anthropomorphizing. Shared attention, or "I see a really cool thing, and, rather than continuing to appreciate the really cool thing, I'm going to look away from the cool thing to see if you see it too, because that would make it better somehow." is one of the few truly unique human traits. It is, likely, what has allowed for our superior intelligence capabilities in this corner of the universe, but, like my own indifference about the usefulness of social networking sites, I can imagine the most intelligent civilizations ignoring strangers who send a friend request.
As usual, the Onion delivers.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/82477
I actually did LOL, and that doesn't happen all too often.
I wonder if only nerds LOL at that.
I am fairly certain that I can offer no objective opinion on the matter. :)
I've been to the "Very Large Slip 'n Slide Array in New Mexico". It was pretty cool. Would have been better, though, if they'd had any water in New Mexico.
Post a Comment