This quote to me is quite strange. It is describing a theoretical formula to calculate the chances of life in the cosmos. This equation boggles me for many reasons; the main point that I have trouble with is how to you find out any one of the variables. How do find the number of systems that could theoretically support life if we can't visit them or even get close to them to see? How do we know how many planets have life and if they have arisen to a 'state of intelligence,'? If we have no answers for any of these probabilities then what good does this formula do for science?
Thursday, October 28, 2010
QQC Part Two
"Under Drake's equation you divide the number of stars in a selected portion of the universe by the number of stars that are likely to have planetary systems; divide that by the number of planetary systems that could theoretically support life; divide that by the number on which life, having arisen, advances to a state of intelligence; and so on."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, I don't think that we have a 100% sure way of ascertaining if a planet can support and sustain life, but I think they make this guess, in such a way, that they look for planets that look similar based on their atmosphere. For example, if there is a planet that is large and mostly blue with some large land masses coming out of it, then it seems similar to Earth right? well then, that is the reason I see that they can venture a guess as to how many planets can support and sustain life, but as I said, there is probably no way for us to be 100% sure if a planet can support life, unless we actually go to said planet and wait to see if life emerges.
ReplyDeleteAs to how many have reached a "state of intelligence" then that is a whole matter entirely, there is a far greater chance that we would probably run into an advanced civilization in space itself then actually finding their planet, unless that haven't been able to reach space yet, in which case the "state of intelligence" is most likely in the process of developing.
I do see a possible use for this formula, even if the possibilities you say are non-existent....you can always adapt the equation in order to fit it to your needs, and who knows , it may actually be right....never shut something down, unless you are 100% sure it won't work.....................................
That's just my view on it
Although it may not be possible to find exact values and whotnot, this dwells in the world of theories. In order to explore concepts and ideas, assumptions must be made. Plus, thinking as this as an formula, you can still have a formula full of variables repalcing actual numbers.
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you in that since it doesn't look like communication is possible, the formula and the energy spent on the problem does seem fruitless. This equation is working from the top-down, not considering the actual probability for the emergence of life in the first place--which are ridiculously low (a very conservative estimate would be about 1 in 60x10^69; impossibility occurs at 1 in 10^50--be wary of statistics, though: they are only used for illustrative purposes!). The model assumes that if a planet can support life that life will emerge, not accounting for the roadblocks associated with the emergence of life in the first place. So theoretically we could be the only life in the universe, or if not the only life, we could potentially be the only intelligent life, as other planets might be billions of years away from developing intelligence. (note that this, on my part, is pure speculation. I don't believe a word of it.)
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm really saying is that I agree... I can't really see a purpose for this equation either, since the distance is so great between theorized civilizations and the possibility that they are there to begin with, as I mentioned above, is exceedingly remote.