This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
Big deal (Score:1)
Re:Doesn't prove anything (Score:2)
Hmm... there's plenty of silicon and sulphur dioxide around here, and I have yet to discover any sign of life...
Alien two:
Well, it can't be on the third planet... I mean, silicon wouldn't even be liquid at surface temperatures... Try the next star system...
Re:Why is it? (Score:2)
Re:I'm betting... (Score:1)
Wow, Contact was a documentary? Here I thought it was wildy inaccurate fiction. Silly me.
Down that path lies madness. On the other hand, the road to hell is paved with melting snowballs.
Re:Doesn't prove anything (Score:2)
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:3)
Agreed. Imangine there is a civizization 10,000 light years from Earth devolping at the same rate and time as humans. We would be unable to detect their television even if their transmitters were more powerful then ours and on and ideal frequency for communicating between star systems. Those television shows are still 9,920 years from reaching earth. Now if they are just as war like as us you can assume that nobody on either planet will be able to detect them. A war big enough to destroy civilization in the next 9,000 years isn't exactly unlikely.
It is possibal that many civilizations have rose and fell over the years, and earthlings arrived at radio reception too late to detect the transmissions from the last one, but too soon for the next one. Note that because of the slow speed of light it is possibal for the transmission of the first civilization to not reach earth yet, while the transmissions from a latter one have gone by, and all three civilizations have missed each other.
Of course if someone devolps enough space travel to havea self sufficant colinies in different star systems it is less likely that we have missed them. (Then you have to account for the possibility that earth is a self sufficant colony of a now long gone civialization, though that lack of remains tends to rule that out.
Big deal (Score:1)
It is only because so many places do not have life, that this small possibility gets people excited. I really don't know why people are so excited. This doesn't prove anything, it just isn't a disproof. Find me a planet with Internet access, and then we'll talk about signs of life.
---
ticks = jiffies;
while (ticks == jiffies);
ticks = jiffies;
Sweedish Meatballs (Score:2)
There was something like this in Babylon-5, where all known intelligent species had all produced something, though by different names, that was basically a sweedish meatballs dish.
Re:Doesn't prove anything (Score:1)
I call bunk (Score:2)
I agree. I think a lot of the populace is poisoned by Star Trek, where aliens are, by and large, humans with face paint. There is no reason to expect extra-terrestrial life to resemble us.
> To the point that most likely the biggest challenge in finding other life in the universe will be recognizing it as life.
That's ridiculous. We know *exactly* what life is, and how to recognize it. How, you ask? It's quite simple...humans *invented* life. "Life" is merely a concept and a word. It is a notion that humans invented to suite our own needs.
There is a precise scientific definition of what constitutes "life"...we define something as "living" if it meets the 7 (or so) requirements accepted by the scientific community. For a while there was a debate among scientists whether the definition should be changed to include viruses. Last I heard, viruses only met 5 of the 7 points. Hence, they are not technically living creatures. No problem there...life means whatever humans want it to mean. It's just that some humans felt "life" would be a more *useful* category if it included viruses. I see their argument.
Anyway, my point is that many people don't understand that "life" is an entirely human creation -- purely an aspect of human language and science. There is no universal notion of living things. It's just a useful category that humans have created. If we encountered an alien species, there is no guarantee that they would have a similar notion to "life".
--Lenny
Poll (Score:1)
It's a shame they did not include two obvious choices in the poll, though:
Re:We were CREATED (Score:1)
To me it is a matter of width vs. depth. We need to answer all kinds of questions, if we all focus on just _some_ issues all kinds of interesting and important matters would never get found out.
Just my 2 devaluated cents.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:1)
I wonder if the other forms of life don't use a different form of communications. If a life form developed with direct mental communications or the chemicl communication (like in some insects) then our frequencies shot out in space would mean nothing to them. They may be mentally projecting thier greetings to us be we are not equiped to recieve.
Who knows?
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:1)
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:1)
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:1)
Re:ET isn't going to be calling any time soon... (Score:2)
I would think a species would be most likely to destroy itself in the first couple of hundred thousand years. After that, it's all gravy.
Well, not gravy per se; more like giant ephemorous energy-gathering constructs ~1 AU across, quietly gathering 99.999_% of the energy of their star(s).
-
Probabilities of life... (Score:3)
Each finding suggests that life is probably a common thing in our Universe, since, with the findings of other solar systems with reasonably sized planets and even, as here, water, points out the conditions of the creation of life.
Given the vast number of stars out there, even a tiny percentage of life-friendly planets makes it really probable of lots of life in every galaxy.
Thing is, can we contact them? Can we travel to them, and they to us?
Imagine finding out that there is (almost surely) life everywhere, but not being able to make contact. Hope not.
Re:Aminoacids and water (Score:2)
If so.. no, this doesn't expand to other locations in space. The first reason, there isn't bacteria there. Bacteria is life, and bacteria is what causes mold and fungi to form on coffee. If that isn't there, then there is no mold. And, as far as I know, this piece is missing.
I could just be missing your argument completely though.
Re:I'm betting... (Score:1)
Much more likely is that what is going on here is that same as has been going on with other worlds since the beginning of time (as we know it), and will probably continue on long after Earth is slagged into molten lava when the Sun novas. Anybody who believes in a real God, not an "all encompassing spirit that surrounds and binds us" (nods to Yoda), will admit that we are not alone in the Universe. It is pure and utter hubris to think otherwise.
/me apologizes for Mozilla's screwed up formatting
Re:I'm betting... (Score:1)
OT: Re:I'm betting... (Score:1)
To take this *completely* off-topic (hence the title change), I would submit that if God is truly our "Father in Heaven", the *only* long-term goal that he could have is to help us become like him. A lot of religous people get nervous at this point B-) The Eternal Plan that I envision includes an family that stretches back into infinity, with every generation striving to help it's children achieve the same status it has reached, with the children being us, but also God before us, and his parents before him. I can't imagine anything else that fits my premise, which is that God loves us, he is our spiritual Father, and that he is real, made of flesh and bone.
Well, there goes my carefully built up karma hoard
Oh, and the omnipresent thing is something thought up by Catholics, not something that is actually in the Bible (IIRC). In case you couldn't tell, I'm not Catholic B-)
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
As many detractors are fond of pointing out, our current Seti@Home effort wouldn't be powerful enough to find us humans if it were set up on another star.
Components of life do not life make! (Score:4)
If I had all the components of a car (not assembled) I would not have a car until they were placed in the right order, with the right alignment, and the right torque applied to them.
Simply discovering car parts (and what has been discovered is the raw material of car parts, not the parts themselves) does not indicate that we should find 'cars' in the universe.
It's possible - and even more likely than if those parts didn't exist - BUT there's more required than what has been found.
Stanley Miller's experiments proved that having the right component materials in 'ideal' circumstances doesn't even give the building blocks of life.
(Dang chirality!)
I'm not saying that life like ours doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe, just that it this discovery doesn't mean that it does.
Life is hard. Creating life is REALLY hard.
--Anomaly
Now comes the part where I lose credibility with those of my readers who are closed-minded.
God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you want to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
We do. Communication requires a carrier. We use photons because they travel at light speed. There is not any evidence that SUSY or strings will shake up the fundemental requirement that information travels on matter. Thus we know that the idea of mental projection in the absence of projecting some 'thing' (e.g. photons) is a looser.
Further, the idea that low power intra-planet transmissions could take place between extra-terrestrials is interesting, but the high power needed for societal communication or worse yet inter-stellar communication could somehow be released from carbon based life is a similar no go.
--
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
Only because we don't have equipment with enough sensitivity to find earth size planets in any orbits, much less distant ones like ours.
(in fact scientists are rethinking the standard solar system model because of it)
No they are rethinking it because of the wierd orbits of the 'jupiters' they are finding. Not because of the absence of 'earths'.
So yes, assuming we're the only ones out here is jumping to conclusions, but so is assuming the universe falls neatly into the Heliocentric solar system model, don't you think?
No.
I think that expecting that the vast number of stars that are like our own with no near orbit Jupiters don't have a significant percentage with small approx 1 AU orbit planets is, well, anti-Heliocentric. I thought I made that clear.
--
Re:Hubris? (Score:2)
Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy.
Ok. My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution
As for intelligence. I never said that the life elsewhere would be intelligent. Though I did say that in the absence of abundent life it was 'interesting' that the only place that it arose (here, of course) it would become intelligent.
I'd be the first to argue that the vast majority of life outside of earth was not self aware. (an easy bet since it's true here as well...)
--
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
Yes, that's exactly right.
With the exception of a fringe group of WIMP researchers it is widely excepted that we know about all the particles that exist at normal energies. We've verified that research with research into many particles that don't exist at normal energies.
You got me with the whole spelling thing though. You're right, I can't spell. Why memorize what can be looked up. (and I'll give you a shiny new nickle if you know who to attribute that to)
--
Re:Hubris? (Score:2)
No. I'm a dork who missed the solar system reference while trying to post and work at the same time.
Sorry.
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven?
Because I want to be a research scientist and need funding...
No, as I said in the very first line of my post I'm aware that the unexpected sometimes happens. That's why we do experiments to verify. I'm just saying the hubris comes from believing in the 10 angstrom slice that was left behind after occums razor cut through the evidence and said, 'geez guys, why would you seriously consider a lonely universe theory in the almost complete absence of any evidence to support it'.
--
Proving the obvious (Score:5)
But really. We are an average planet around an average star. The hubris required to think that we are along in the universe is almost unmeasurable.
Life is plentiful. The chemistry needed for life is all over the place and we have a planet that provides fantastic evidence that once a molecule is able to replicate itself then life pretty much explodes. There is no reason to believe that something unique happened here to create that initial set of circumstances.
People often point to the lack of communication from other worlds as proof (or at least evidence) that we are alone. Hogwash! We haven't heard from them because there are invariant rules in the universe. This lack of communication is much better evidence that faster than light travel is insurmountable than it is that somehow in the great sea of chemistry that is the universe *we* managed to defy the odds and not only create life, but multicellular life. And not only multicellular, but thinking. And not only thinking, but self aware and communicative. Those are long odds, eh?
Still, if this country (or planet for that matter) was scientifically litereate enough to understand all that I guess poliglut.org (shameless plug) wouldn't need to exist to straighten folks out...
--
Greg Egan (Score:1)
Substantially overblown scientific journalism. (Score:5)
1. The astronomers involved failed to place their discovery in the larger picture. Molecular clouds have been observed in a wide variety of molecues (CO, CO_2, H_2O, CS, H_2CO, HCOOH, C_2H_6, CH_3CH_2OH, etc...) for about thirty years now. Every now and then a slightly more complex molecule is discovered for the first time, but given the complex gas phase chemistry, this is not at all surprising.
2. After failing to properly place the discovery in context, the article immediately leaps to the "origin of life" carrot.
Our educational system has failed to educate the public in basic science, mathematics, and technology. Hence, popular articles such as these
almost NEVER discuss the real scientific importance of discoveries (which would require a more thorough background than can be provided in a 1 minute soundbyte or a webpage -- not that the journalists themselves even have such a background themselves, mind you), scientific journalists continually dangles one of a handful of carrots in front of the dazzled, curious, though admittedly thoroughly ignorant populace :
I. Cure of diseas/disorder (fill in the blank -- cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's, etc.), elimination of world starvation and/or poverty
II. Faster computers, cleaner, more efficient automobiles, better toasters (or fill in favorite life-improvement gadget)
III. Life, the Universe, and Everything
In this case, carrot III was the most convenient.
GET REAL PEOPLE. These many be noble goals, but the truth of the matter is that most scientists are motivated to solve intricate little riddles which are often very involved, but infinitely fascinating. While not diminishing important secondary factors (career, prestige, etc.), in general, they pursue science for science's sake, and only pull out these lame carrots for journalists and popular explanations. (They never use them when discussing amongst themselves). The popular view of a scientist is by now completely distorted by the fact that almost no one, besides other scientists, have the slightest clue as to what scientists ACTUALLY do, and what ACTUALLY
motivates them to do what they do.
3. Lastly, I think the slashdot editors need to exercise better discretion in choosing science topics. This must be the dozenth time I've seen a relatively unimportant, superhyped scientific discovery receive a billing by
Bob
Re:beer in space (Score:1)
We'd drink it all if the tap was at a bowling alley, or maybe at Casino Niagara...
Water and complex carbon with planets nearby. (Score:3)
A survey of middle-aged stars within 350 light years found that half of them were emitting light that showed metals were present in the top layers of the stars. That suggests that metallic dust, asteroids, and planets fell into the star. Not all that stuff falls in, so there are planets around a bunch of those. Planets that formed a long time ago.
Please explain something for me ... (Score:1)
How is it that scientists can find things like water, alcohol, etc that far away? what tools do they use? what software? what deductive logic? what information do they build on?
I don't understand the process at all, so use little words
thanks in advance.
We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us.
Humans mating with aliens? (Score:1)
I thought that if two animals can successfully mate, then they are considered the same species?
If humans can mate with Star Trek "aliens", then those aliens are human!
Re:We were CREATED (Score:1)
You're reaching...and it's on things you don't understand. Things you don't understand mean a HIGHER intelligence than yours is needed to decipher them.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:5)
Well, there are certainly a few things that seem unusual about our planet. That big moon being one of them. But then again, like everything in life, i suspect that the planet that exactly fits the norm is more unusual than all the ones that don't quite.
People often point to the lack of communication from other worlds as proof (or at least evidence) that we are alone. Hogwash! We haven't heard from them because there are invariant rules in the universe. This lack of communication is much better evidence that faster than light travel is insurmountable than it is that somehow in the great sea of chemistry that is the universe *we* managed to defy the odds and not only create life, but multicellular life. And not only multicellular, but thinking. And not only thinking, but self aware and communicative. Those are long odds, eh?
People always seem to forget that if there is other life out there, that it'd most likely be *completely* different from us. Not in a looking funny kind of way, in *every* way. To the point that most likely the biggest challenge in finding other life in the universe will be recognizing it as life. Even if other beings have life, why would they think anything like us? This isn't star trek, folks, where everything has two legs and can actually mate with one another.
The fact that there's no communication means nothing. Who says that another species would *want* to communicate? Who says they would ever develop tools, much less a desire to travel across the universe? Remember, the insects are for the most part far better adapted to this planet than we are.
Re:Humans mating with aliens? (Score:2)
So what.. (Score:2)
Finding carbon rings in space is nothing new. These Nasa scientists are reveiling their lack of knowledge about biology getting all excite about finding benzene and water in space. The central paradigm of molecular biology (DNA->RNA->amino acid) would seem to indicate that the first protolife was in the form of RNA, which can join without the help of enzymes.. RNA itself can fact can act as a enzyme. Amino acids, were probably created 'de novo' by the organism or incorporated into the organism later..
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
According to the concepts of evolution, creatures evolve in reaction to their environment, to take advantage of their surroundings. Ultimately the goal of evolution is to produce a robust, flexible organism that not only reacts to it's environment, but to shape it to suit itself. The simplest organisms take advantage of their environments to feed and reproduce; the most complex (arguably humans) seek to change their environment to suit them. Ironic that up to a certain evolutionary point, organisms react to their environments by changing their dna and defense mechanisms, but in the final analysis, the most evolved creatures stop reacting and begin changing the environment.
At any rate, my point is this: in a similar environment, on a similar planet, I see no reason life wouldn't take the same evolutionary paths as we have. So under closely related conditions after a few million years, I believe it's likely for some humanish creatures to reach the plateau that we have. Our superiority is no fluke; it's the result of millions of years of careful genetic reactionism.
Science and Culture (Score:2)
There was something like this in Babylon-5, where all known intelligent species had all produced something, though by different names, that was basically a sweedish meatballs dish.
That was a minor throwaway joke, of course. On the other hand, the Crusade episode "The Needs of Earth" noted the distinction between scientific knowledge (which is inherent to reality and can be discovered by any intelligence using the right tools) and culture (which is an irreproducable result).
/.
Re:Key ingredients dictated by chemistry (Score:2)
Nope. After Hydrogen and Helium, the next most common element in the universe is Oxygen. Elements 3, 4, and 5 are actually way down on the list of common elements. So, statistically, you're wrong on this, although I do think that Carbon is fourth in overall abundance in the universe. (But, statistically, everything after Hydrogen and Helium is about the same.)
As far as our planet is concerned, Oxygen is most abundant, then Silicon. Carbon isn't even in the top 10. Carbon is more abundant than Silicon in the universe, but on our planet (a big hunk of rock), Silicon wins the abundance battle. This is likely the case for all big life-bearing rocks (silicates).
--
Re:The Molecules of Life. (Score:2)
Yup. Same-old-same-old.
Wanna impress me? Gimme some insanely-long-baseline-interferometry capable of getting a spectrum from a planetary body and show me a big pile of diatomic oxygen.
Until then, it's good research, but it doesn't change the big picture (the building blocks of life are everywhere) we've been aware of for a long time.
Key ingredients dictated by chemistry (Score:3)
1. Because it's a lower molecular weight, from simple statistics a lot more carbon exists in the universe than similar elements (like silicon). Because it's a lower molecular weight, the sheer size of the electron orbitals doesn't interfere with molecular bonding.
2. "Foobarium", unless it has a tetrahedral organization like carbon, probably won't form the complex chains necessary for life. And since everything above silicon doesn't form chains due to weak molecular bonding, "foobarium", barring a revolution in the basic principles of life, doesn't exist. There are no silicon life forms on Earth because silicon chains break down in the presence of oxygen.
Re:Components of life do not life make! (Score:2)
In fact, anything can be made by assembling these particles the right way. Computers, people, tennis shoes, Einstein's brain, the entire earth and everything in it.
But I bet no one here can do it. Not even assemble a pencil from particles. And you'd have top wait a long time for it to happen spontaneously.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
--Brogdon
Why is it? (Score:3)
I'm reminded of back when scientists were sure that all life on this planet was based in some way on the photosynthesis cycle. Plants use the sun to make their energy, animals eat the plants for energy, decay puts materials back into the soil for plants to use as raw materials, and they engergize the whole system once again. They had this set in their minds as the paradigm of life, and then one day someone found organisms at the bottom of the sea living off the energy of a vent in the sea floor (chemosynthesis). Blew their minds.
Anybody else a litle nervous about us searching space looking for our own form of life? Remeber in Stranger in a Strange Land when the scientists decided there couldn't be any life on Mars because there wasn't any oxygen? Let's learn from our Sci-fi, guys!
--Brogdon
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
I suppose it's not at all possible that the 'thing'(e.g. photon-like) is something undiscovered by human scientists thus far? About a thousand years ago we would regularly 'bleed' people to release 'bad humours' that were keeping them from being well. If, at that point, someone had proposed that microscopic 'germs' were the real cause, they probably would've been told that such ideas were also the 'looser' [sic].
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
Re:I'm betting... (Score:2)
Thanks for mentioning Yoda. It makes my response on-topic (since religion is off-topic, but star wars is ALWAYS on-topic).
I always took the "FORCE" of the Star Wars series to be the exact same thing as "GOD." They're both symbols for the unknown (and unknowable) forces that guide us and shape our reality. The only difference I see in the concept of GOD and the concept of FORCE is that many literal-minded religious people tend to think of GOD as being a person, which doesn't make much sense when you consider all the other forms of life that are not even remotely human. (Plants, other animals, insects, bacteria, etc.)
Besides, if GOD (a symbol) is really omnipresent and infinite, how could GOD be anything BUT an "all encompassing spirit that surrounds and binds us?"
-The Reverend (I am not a Nazi nor a Troll)
Re:I'm betting... (Score:2)
So far, no one has brought this up in this thread, although a lot of people have kind of circled the mark. The Star Wars FORCE is not as close to the Western view of God as people seem to think. It is, however, pretty much equivalent to the Eastern concept of the Tao (procounced "dough", not "tau").
Lucas was and is fascinated by Asian culture, and Japanese culture in particular. Note, for instance, the design of the snowtroopers from Empire and Amidala's costuming from Phantom. However, consider something more important than any of these design issues: the lightsaber. The lightsaber duels in all the movies (or at least the first three... I'm not sure about Phantom) were performed using kenjutsu, essentially modelling the Jedi after the ancient samurai. It therefore was natural for Lucas to choose an Eastern type of mysticism as the basis of his Jedi's beliefs. (Although traditionally, I believe the samurai were more Buddhist than they were Taoist, but I could be wrong.)
Re:Animo Acids != Life (Score:2)
that's where random lightning strikes come into play... stir things up and make them more interesting...
Key Ingredients for Life *RANT* (Score:2)
John Scalzi (Score:2)
----
Animo Acids != Life (Score:4)
I hate to be the voice of the devils advocate, but we need a lot more than animo acids to show that there is life on other worlds. Simple organic chem experiments show that given the right elements, its pretty easy to get animo acids. Finding them is actually no big surprise.
The hardest part of the whole abiogenesis equation that we need is the formation of simple life from its ubiquitous amino acid building blocks. We essentially need some way for the building blocks to logically result in the creation of a castle through either random collisions or some other mechanism. This is the difficult part and some advances have been made in looking at organic chemistry in Zero-G. The problem is that we are still orders of magnitude away from getting a living and more importantly reproducing cell that natural selection requires for further evolution.
In short, don't count your eggs before their hatched because we still have a long way to go. We really don't know how abiogenesis occured on earth yet, so to start saying that its occuring all over the universe may be a bit of a stretch.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:3)
Actually, there's little evidence to back this up. I'm one of the team members on the project that tries to monitor a few hundred "solar-like" stars to test (among other things) how "normal" the Sun really is. Macroscopically, you can argue that it's on the Main Sequence, and doesn't do anything strange compared to other stars.
However, if you change the problem around to looking for stars that are almost identical to the Sun in every way (working out of the assumption that if the Sun is "ordinary" then there should be a lot of other stars that are also "ordinary", out of a carefully-chosen sample, you come up with a very VERY short list --- it's in the single digits, and even then I keep finding reasons to exclude those stars from the list. One could almost claim at that point that there are no "average" stars.
I hope to have a paper submitted to the Astrophysical Journal later this year on this topic.
As for Earth being "average", again the evidence so far is that Solar System-like systems is not the norm. At this point we should be detecting Jupiters (5 AU orbiting planets with 1 Jupiter mass) around solar-like stars, yet the zoophony of extra-solar planetary systems favors either 51 Peg-like planets, or systems with planets that have highly eccentric orbits (e.g., the planet orbiting 16 Cyg B). There's a selection effect present, of course (it's easier to detect the ones with higher mass and shorter periods), but the surveys are reaching completion levels with long enough time series that we should be making up the difference *if* system configurations like ours are normal.
(The implication here is that in neither the 51 Peg-like system or the 16 Cyg B-like system is it likely [possible?] to end up with an Earth-like planet --- they'll either get bounced our or the proto-planetary matter will be swept up.)
Re: cool! (Score:2)
Aminoacids and water (Score:3)
1) A solar system is a complex entity with a lot of different stages in the amounts of particles, temperature and type of molecules
2) There is a big energy source around, capable of creating almost all of the lower weight atoms.
3) Because of the energy source, there is a lot of different entropies in the system
Consider these facts, and add the key element "time". Time is the main actor in evolution, allowing more complex elements to be formed.
It's no so strange that there is water around a lot of (early) solar systems. I would find it strange if time didn't create aminoacids yet.
Let's make an parallel with real life. Take the following ingredients:
1. Time
2. Coffee and hot water (energy sources)
3. A coffee mug
Make coffee, put coffee in mug and wait a little. Voila, you'll get white stuff on your coffee although the surroundings where completely random.
Okay, what you're going to say is: this is completely logical, nature have made a way to use all energy available. But can't we stretch such a thing into the large, solar system-sized area?
I'm really wondering, but I think the most important key elements are there with every solar system.
Whoa.. (Score:3)
I love it when scientists speak to reporters as if the reporters were 7th graders in an earth sciences lab.
"That's what we in the scientific community like to call, 'a beaker' Johnny. Now please put it down before you break something."
tcd004
The Guts of the Pentium 4! [lostbrain.com]
Dont' click here unless you want stock photos. [lostbrain.com]
ET isn't going to be calling any time soon... (Score:2)
Odds are that intelligent alien life is in a position to communicate with us is remote. On the galactic scale intelligent alien life probably developed millions of years before us or they just crawled up out of the primordial swamp. Don't expect ET to phone....
No harm in looking though...but keep it in perspective...
Sterling
Re:I call bunk (Score:2)
"what do you mean they're 'made of meat'!?"
---
Re:Probabilities of life... (Score:2)
Hehe.. there's some well-documented research that shows that foreign life forms exist right here on Earth! Of course, 'foreign' sorta depends on what country you originate from...
Sean
And in related news... (Score:2)
rr
Science and Religion... (Score:2)
I sigh in your general direction.
rr
Re:Science and Religion... (Score:2)
Secondly, they're not the same. They can be treated similarly, but they are not the same. Science is about gaining knowledge from first principles. Religion (in my view) is about relationship. When studying science, you have to make certain assumptions (effectively materialism, as in "the only things that exist are the physical, material things"), otherwise things don't make sense. What sort of use would science be if we all sat down and said "oh, God makes the plants grow" and left it at that? Equally, saying "God doesn't exist because Science says so" is a circular argument.
To the person who talked about skills, you are partly right. However, Religion and Science (cooking and programming) require different skills as well, and work from different assumptions.
Finally, the person who talked about the same knowledge domains, yeah, it's kinda true. However, still it's different. Science and Religion both touch on the creation of the universe, but they cover different aspects of it. As long as you don't screw up your basic assumtions, you get practically useful info about processes that are happening now from science, and you get your knowledge about your relationship with God from Religion.
Hence, Science and Religion are not related at all. I personally beleive in evolution, big bang and so on, as well as beleiving that God created the world ~6000 years ago as written in the bible. I see no conflict, as the scientific view is based on a materialist world view, and is useful for learning about how things work, changing things, building things, and so on, and the religious veiw is based on my relationship with god, and is useful for living my life.
I think I'll stop here, as it's getting OT -- feel free to email me to carry on...
rr
Re:Maybe the evidence for life is obvious. (Score:2)
Besides, all this interstellar poltics doesn't matter now, Earth is slated to be demolished to make way for a new hyperspace bypass. The plans have been in the Alpha Centauri office for hundreds of years.
Time to start looking for the hitchhiker's guide.
-Cyc
So long, and thanks for all the fish
Re:John Scalzi (Score:2)
Thank you very much.
The column is brilliant, and the writer deserves appropriate credit.
Everyone should check out his other columns while we are at it. Reward him with a few hits.
beer in space (Score:5)
This week, a million fraternity brothers rushed to join NASA. The reason: scientists have discovered beer in space.
Well, not beer exactly. But they did find alcohol: ethyl alcohol, to be precise, the active ingredient in all major alcoholic drinks (antifreeze Jell-O shots, quite obviously, are exempted from this category). Three British scientists, Drs. Tom Millar, Geoffrey MacDonald and Rolf Habing, discovered this interstellar Everclear floating in a gas cloud in the contellation of Aquila (sign of the Eagle, the mascot of Anheuser-Busch! Hmmmmm).
Millar and his compatriots have estimated the size of this gas cloud at approximately 1,000 times the diameter of our own solar system; there's enough alcohol out there, they say, to make 400 trillion trillion pints of beer. These guys are British, mind you; if you were to translate this in terms of American beer (which the British, with some justification, regard as fermented club soda), the amount of potential brewski just about doubles.
In human terms: remember that double-keg party you threw at the end of your Junior year in college (the second Junior year)? Imagine throwing that same party, every eight hours, for the next 30 billion years. You'd STILL have beer left over. And boy, would YOUR bathroom be a mess! Simply put, no one could ever drink 400 trillion trillion pints of beer, except maybe Buffalo Bills fans.
The sheer volume of all this alcohol begs the question of how it managed to get out there in the first place. Despite the simplifying effect it has on the human brain, ethyl alcohol is a reasonably complex molecule: two carbon atoms, five hydrogen atoms, and a hydroxyl radical, all cavorting together in beery camaraderie. It's not a compund that is going to spontaneously arise out of the cold depths of space. It can lead to speculation: What is this cloud?
1. It's God's beer. After all, He worked for six days creating the universe, and on the seventh day, He rested. And after you've had a hard week at the office, don't YOU grab a beer? Since man is made in God's image, it could be that this cloud is the remaining evidence of the first, and best, Miller Time.
2. It's Purgatory ("400 trillion trillion bottles of beer on the wall, 400 trillion trillion bottles of beer! Take one down, pass it around, three hundred ninety-nine septillion, nine hundred ninety-nine sextillion, nine hundred ninety-nine quintillion, nine hundred ninety-nine quadrillion, nine hundred ninety-nine trillion, nine hundred ninety-nine billion, nine hundred ninety-nine million, nine hundred ninety-nine thousand, nine hundred ninety-nine, bottles of beer on the wall!")
3. Proof of an undeniably highly advanced but chronically dipsomaniac alien society. This particular theory is shaky, however: it's reasonable to assume that if the aliens were going to construct a nebula of alcohol, they'd also have large clouds of Beer Nuts and pretzels nearby for snacking. Advanced spectral analysis has yet to locate them.
The truth of the matter, however, is far more prosaic. In the middle of this gas cloud is a young and no doubt quite inebriated star. As the star heats up and contracts, sucking the dust and gas of the cloud into a smaller area, complex molecules form as a result of greater interaction between the elements. Ethyl alcohol forms on small motes of dust in the cloud, and then, as the motes angle in closer towards the star and heat up, the alcohol is released from the motes in gaseous form. And there you have it: an alcohol cloud. Or, as Dave Bowman might say, "My God! It's full of booze!"
Enough with the science lesson, you say. Just tell me how to GET there! Sorry, Chuckles. You can't get there from here. The gas cloud (which, by the way, has the utterly romantic name of "G34.3") is 10,000 light years away: 58 quadrillion miles. Even if you hijacked the shuttle and headed out with thrusters on full, by the time you got there, the guy in Purgatory would be done with his tune. You'd have had time to work up a powerful thirst, but you'd also be, in a word, dead.
No, the Space Beer Cloud will have to wait for the far future, when men can leap through the universe at warp speed. One can only imagine what they will do when they get there:
Captain Kirk: My....GOD! Sulu! What....is....THAT?
Sulu: It's a free floating cloud of alcohol, sir.
Kirk: And we've just run out of Romulan Ale! Could it be a trap, Bones?
Bones: Damn it, Jim! I'm a doctor, not a distiller of fine spirits!
Kirk: We need that booze! But if we fly through that cloud, we'll be too drunk to drive!
Spock: May I remind you, Captain, that I am a Vulcan. We are a race of designated drivers.
Kirk: Well, all righty, then. Spock, drive us through! Bones and I will be out on the hull. With our mouths... open!
To boldly drink what no man has drunk before.
Re:Then where are they? (Score:2)
Your thought-experiment suffers from a sample size which is far too low to make it relevant
For the record, I agree with you. It's almost meaningless to conclude anything based on the information we have, but I'm just not going to let that stop me from having an opinion. :-)
However, for the sake of argument...
It's like me looking at my apartment of 6 rooms and noticing that, as far as I can see, there's only a computer in my dining room. "This is suggestive," I might say, "that dining-room like conditions really are the only situations in which computers can exist."
OTOH, staying with that analogy, moving your computer to your bedroom won't cause it to malfunction. But move a human being to any other planet on the solar system (without any technological aids), and his life expectancy will be greatly shortened.
--
Then where are they? (Score:4)
A number of people have commented that these types of molecules are only the key ingredients for life as we currently know it. This is fair enough.
However, here's my point of view. In our own solar system, right here in our back yard, there is a very wide variety of different environments: the surface of every planet and moon is, in places subtly, and in places completely, different from each other.
As far as we can see (so far) only Earth has life in our solar system. To me, this is suggestive. If you really believe that life can form in completely different environments, why didn't they form in any of the completely different environments that exist right next door?
Of course, this is not proof; it's perhaps not even corroborating evidence. However, it's enough to make me believe (tentatively) that Earth-like conditions really are the only kind of conditions in which life can form in our universe.
I'm open to the possibility that wildly different life could form elsewhere in the universe, and I know that there must be places in the universe that have environments that are so different as to be incomprehensible, but hey, we have to base our opinions on what we know currently. If we totally throw open the gates of possibility, then we can never come to any conclusion about anything.
--
Re:beer in space (Score:2)
Now, my theory, nay, proven fact is that the large number of crashes [cseti.org] is due to interstellar drunken driving. Kids go to these clouds and get seriously pissed. It is well known in the Galactic Community (just ask any alien!) that the parties on earth take off, so the alien kids can't stop after inhaling a cloud, but continue to earth, where they are caught in our strong gravitional field with the inevitable result, a crash. ;-)
Re:Hubris? (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't prove anything (Score:2)
But it is kind of funny on an irony scale.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
Believing the desired (Score:3)
I'm agnostic regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life. And while there are some interesting discoveries that show that the possibility of ET life is not unfounded, we are not yet at the point of saying, "Life is plentiful" with regards to any location except our own planet.
What do we have?
- Indirect evidence of planets. Note, there is not yet any direct observation of planets. Rather, they are inferred from the detecteed motion of stars, which is best explained by the presence of giant planets (e.g. Jupiter and larger). (I'm not trying to suggest that the scientists are wrong; just trying to make clear what we know and have have directly observed).
- Evidence of carbon and water molecules in the further reaches of space.
- Discoveries of extreme-condition life; the microbes that live in extreme environmental conditions.
Well, good, it's generally believed that those are necessary ingredients for life, and we find that life will survive in pretty radical situations. But life this does not guarantee. Just because we find evidence of yeast and flour, it doesn't mean that there is bread nearby.
Something that's been bothering me for a while, as a scientist, is my (possibly incorrect) understanding of the study of biological evolution. The physical sciences require both observations and predictions. Most scientists, I believe, hold that a theory is not truly useful unless it can be falsified. That is, a theory must predict something that can be verified or shown incorrect, e.g. the rate of descent of an object is independent of its mass.
However, when it comes to the formation of life and its development, my impression is that there is a lack of falsifiable predictions. There are not predictions of the sort, given chemicals X & Y we will see life Z emerge; or, given environmental conditions A, life Z will develop into related form Z'. Instead, it is largely a matter of noting, conditions A existed when life Z' lived. Therefore, Z' must have been caused by A.
This is not 'complete' science. So then, perhaps some of the more biologically-minded folk out there can answer my question:
"Regarding the study of life and its genesis and development, are what are the falsifiable predictions?"
IANAB (I am not a biologist), so I may be way off base here, but if so, please point me in the direction of some useful info. I'd appreciate it.
-----
D. Fischer
Scientists discover extra-solar 1950's-era office (Score:2)
Accountants in space. It all makes sense now.
How quantum gravity affects tax withholding and other actuarial issues... [ridiculopathy.com]
Re:Life in Cosmic Stew (Score:2)
Yes, it is a shame that people read the absurd things that they write on sites like infidels.org. They always seem to quote sources that the majority of Muslims agree are unauthentic or they quote some translation which are far from the original meaning. What the Muslims have always been strict on is that the Quran is in Arabic and that you can attempt to translate the meaning of the words but you can't translate the Quran itself. As a result, I can take-up your challenge because I have access to the Quranic Arabic and can clearly see the mistakes that they make on infidel.org. I can only presume that the poeple who wrote the articles on infidel.org a). don't know Arabic and b). haven't read any of the books of the scholars from where we take our explanation of the verses in the Qur'an.
As a Catholic, the FORCE is not my GOD (Score:2)
Now, if you want to make an analogy that using the FORCE is akin to witchcraft, possesion or Wicca, you can make a better analogy.
Yeap, I think the FORCE is evil, and an abomination, especially the way Lucas is portraying it usurping GOD's power to create a Virgin Birth.
Of course, that makes the Jedi akin to Templars, then, a goodlly group of people that were seduced by evil.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
-chaswell, who doesn't even know if he was trying to be funny.
Re:Proving the obvious (Score:2)
As best as we can tell human-type intelligence is not a notably desirable evolutionary trait. Most of the obvious benefits of a versatile intelligence can be better met by evolution for strength and a few specific instincts. For pre-Agrarian (hunter-gatherer) societies of, say, Ape-like creatures the pressure to develop into something that has an intellect capable of devising radio, inter-steller space travel and Classical music is very low. On the other hand, the pressure to develop of thick skull, big arms and the ability to tell by instinct which berries are poisonous is quite high.
Human intelligence, if a coincidence at all, would seem to be something of an environmental fluke. The chances of life on any given Earth-sized planet are low; the chances of "intelligent life" are very low.
Life and intelligence are human concepts... (Score:2)
In terms of life, why is there a limit between a virus and a bacteria ? Intelligent life is definitely a human concept. There seems to be a constant though in the universe: it's that its disorder is increasing every day and at the same time, we observe that matter takes more and more complex shapes. If the strings theory is true, at the beginning there were strings which turned into elementary particles, which associated thanks to the strong interaction force, which turned into more complex particles like atoms with their properties which associated into molecules with again very different properties according to their composition, properties like NDA. Eventually some of these particles associated to turn into what we call living organisms. These organisms evoluted into more complex organisms and there we are, in front of our TVs, watching the match, having a Bud, worshipping god, self-claimed intelligent life.
As an analogy for the computer nerds (I've heard there were quite a few here), we have silicium and electricty, then transistors, then hardware, then assembly, then C, then object oriented languages, then visual languages, then XML applications, then
The universe seems to go in the sense of more abstraction, a process which we call evolution. Note that when you put living beings together, you have micro and macro social behaviours. What is the next level ? Who knows whether some alien species have reached several other levels which we could not even conceive ? Who knows whether water and amino-acids are the only way for matter to restructure itself into a more complex shape ? Who knows whether there are only 4 dimensions, whether the speed of light is the ultimate limit, whether time is only going forwards, whether there is only one time dimension ?
And no please, do not mention god or God or Buddha or Bill Gates or Ronaldo. If such a concept exists, it should be the same for the whole universe no ? What would happen if one day we meet some kind of intelligent conscient blue color who wants to communicate with us ?
Well, I do believe that life sows its seeds chaotically in the whole universe and a few experiments have shown that water, amino-acids and a few temperature, pressure,
And who knows, maybe a few messages were sent by some living species at some point and the whole communications were gobbled by a black hole in the center of our galaxy. That's also a probability.
Not personally... (Score:2)
--
Good gravy! (Score:2)
I sincerely hope you are some kind of 5 year-old typing prodigy, because the thought of an adult (or even a high-schooler) not understanding why the above is true is truly frightening.
--
Re:Hubris? (Score:2)
The actual parsing of this sentence is beyond me, but I think I get the gist. Let me explain where I'm coming from here:
It used to be that people thought the sun revolved around the Earth. This was hubristic but not just because they thought they were in the middle. It was hubristic because it elevated the status of Earth despite the fact that it made the theory more complicated (by requiring retro-grade motion for planets, etc).
Now, one could make the argument that a universe with only one life-bearing planet requires more explanation than a universe with multiple such planets, in which case I agree that saying Earth is alone without providing that special explanation is probably hubristic. However given how little we know about general biological (not to mention geological, climatological, etc) principles--we only really have one example--then such special explanations can easily abound.
--
Re:Hubris? (Score:3)
You: "Yes. That was my position. It would be hubristic to believe that we are alone."
Let me get this straight. If I said to you "I think that Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Solar System" you would call me hubristic? What if we visited all the (solar) planets and found no life? What if I said "I think Earth is the only life-bearing planet in the Earth-Moon system"? Is it hubristic to think that humans are the only intelligent being on Earth?
"My theory is obvious and the fact that people don't see that is because of their hubris. As you say, the fact should be proven and I agree 100% on that. Somehow that thought in my head was lost in the translation to paper."
Something was lost here, too. If your theory is obvious, why do you think it needs to be proven? Or do you mean "it's obvious but possibly false" (kind of like Aristotle's theories of motion)--in which case, why is hubris the only answer for non-adherents to your cause? Couldn't it be that we see through the "obviousness" to the truth?
--
Just how "distant" are they? (Score:4)
Hey, it's more intelligent than what we're doing NOW....
--
Hubris? (Score:4)
Citing "hubris" as a reason to believe in life on other planets is pretty lame. Would it be hubristic to believe there was no life in the rest of the Solar System? If not, why not--it the same as your argument about the universe. How about if I believed ours was the only planet that had produced "Toccata and Fugue in D Minor"? After all with all the "billions and billions" and stars out there with their "obvious" life, surely some other intelligent entity has generated these same tones. To believe otherwise would be hubristic.
Concerns about hubris are really just the inductive principle: things around here are probably average. But note the "probably". Induction is a good way to come up with a new hypothesis, but calling the output "obvious" is a fallacy. Why don't we just go see? At the very least it can show us WHICH planets the life is living on before we go haring off in all directions.
As for intelligent life: intelligence isn't some kind of "ulimate endpoint" of evolution--evolution has no goals. Our ancestors happened to have had selection pressures that resulted in descendents that are intelligent. Elephants happened to have had pressures that result in trunks. Would it be hubristic to think that elephant trunks are unique in the universe? Who knows what conditions will obtain at another location. I sure hope there's intelligent life out there, but I don't think it's "obvious".
--
Re:Science and Religion... (Score:2)
--
I'm betting... (Score:3)
One thought came to mind: I wonder about the possibility of life (defined loosely as collections of molecules that reproduce) is possible in the stellar medium, without having to have a planet as a substrate? Admittedly, there are problems (such as not having sufficient local gravity to pack the interesting molecules together under correct pressure/temperature conditions to react), but if you have a mix of water and organic molecules, it does beg the question.
Any thoughts?
Insert obligatory Andromeda Strain reference here.
OK,
- B
--
So does this mean... (Score:2)
-----
Calvin and Hobbs (Score:4)
Bill Waterson said it best...
The only evidence that there is intelligent life else where in the universe is the fact they have never come here.
______
jeff13
Cool! (Score:2)
Do they run Linux?
If we find that the space aliens run Windows NT, it's bad news - although they'll be very pretty to look at when they're coming towards Earth, they'll crash just as they get to the surface.
Also, what's the uptime on their spaceship? Did they notice any improvement in stability after recompiling the kernel?
--
Re:Why is it? (Score:2)
It is difficult to fully imagine what other non-carbon-based forms of life are like. We're somewhat aware of what makes up our life and what signals and indications to look for. We understand that complex organic molecules can be chained together in a water-borne environment to form simple chemically active proto-cells and so forth. This provides us with a proven set of search parameters. It works here, so it could work elsewhere.
While we can conjecture about life-forms made from silicon or whatever, it remains purely theoretical. There isn't too much concrete evidence about what we should look for from a silicon-based life-form.
Think of it as a go-with-what-you-know strategy.
Key ingredients for life? (Score:2)
Re:Key ingredients for life? (Score:2)
But what do I know, I'm just an idiotic man, a product of the society I bash. That kind of sucks too.;-)
Re:We were CREATED (Score:2)
It is abundantly obvious that the 'design' of the human body, or even some of the 'lesser' creatures is extremely wasteful. So, if we were designed (and that is one mighty gargantuan if, we were designed by an imbecile that had absolutely no idea what the hell they were doing.
Oh, and your attempt at saying that because we don't understand means it must be a higher intelligence is really ridiculous. That is religious posturing, nothing more. I don't understand how the hell anyone could stomach Britney Spears, does that mean she was created by a HIGHER intelligence? Very doubtful. But, go ahead and live with your delusions. That's probably easier than questioning the things around you.
Questions are hard, I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself.
Re:Components of life do not life make! (Score:3)
This is a slightly misleading analogy, as the components of a car cannot "automatically" assemble themselves in the right order, alignment, and torque. Molecules can, just by being placed near each other.
Stanley Miller's experiments proved that having the right component materials in 'ideal' circumstances doesn't even give the building blocks of life.
No. At best, his experiments proved that the building blocks of life do not appear (relatively) instantaneously. No one ever said they did. Give him a few billion years, and a beaker as big as the Earth, and I think you would see different results.
The Molecules of Life. (Score:3)
Complex carbon molecules have been found for ages in space. I recall some 10-20 years ago when they found glycine (an amino acid) and trumpeted that as an advance. Now more recently they've found signs of benzene in space, so I guess it's time for the ol' hip hip hurrah again.
Water is a common element in space. No news there.
Maybe the evidence for life is obvious. (Score:2)
In the 1960's, a well respected russian astronomer known as N Kardashev came up with the Kardashev system of determining alien civilisations.
The scary thing is that a Dyson Sphere would look almost exactly like a red dwarve star. It could well be that many phenomena we see in space and interpret as natural phenomena are in fact megascale engineering projects of distant civilisations.
Another possibility is that these distant civilisations use Matrioshka Brains, big computers in the form of Dyson Spheres, surrounding a star. Everybody would be uploaded into this environment, and would become as gods.
Problem is, we are pumping out radiation all the time, from our television transmitters and our mobile phones and so on. It is like the cheeping of a new born bird, we are alone and naked and letting everyone know where we are. There is no reason to suppose that such civilisations would be friendly. I think we should take enormous and difficult steps to quiet down out interstellar emissions. It is time to start playing interstellar politics.
More info can be found here [plantetp.cc], a very interesting page on this subject by an esteemed author.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,
Maybe the evidence for life is obvious! (Score:3)