New Model Calculates Chances of Intelligent Beings In Our Universe and Beyond (ras.ac.uk) 40
Chances of intelligent life emerging in our Universe "and in any hypothetical ones beyond it" can be estimated by a new theoretical model, reports the Royal Astronomical Society.
Since stars are a precondition for the emergence of life, the new research predicts that a typical observer [i.e., intelligent life] should experience a substantially larger density of dark energy than is seen in our own Universe... The approach presented in the paper involves calculating the fraction of ordinary matter converted into stars over the entire history of the Universe, for different dark energy densities. The model predicts this fraction would be approximately 27% in a universe that is most efficient at forming stars, compared to 23% in our own Universe. Dark energy makes the Universe expand faster, balancing gravity's pull and creating a universe where both expansion and structure formation are possible. However, for life to develop, there would need to be regions where matter can clump together to form stars and planets, and it would need to remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.
Crucially, the research suggests that the astrophysics of star formation and the evolution of the large-scale structure of the Universe combine in a subtle way to determine the optimal value of the dark energy density needed for the generation of intelligent life. Professor Lucas Lombriser, Université de Genève and co-author of the study, added: "It will be exciting to employ the model to explore the emergence of life across different universes and see whether some fundamental questions we ask ourselves about our own Universe must be reinterpreted."
The study was funded by the EU's European Research Council, and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
Since stars are a precondition for the emergence of life, the new research predicts that a typical observer [i.e., intelligent life] should experience a substantially larger density of dark energy than is seen in our own Universe... The approach presented in the paper involves calculating the fraction of ordinary matter converted into stars over the entire history of the Universe, for different dark energy densities. The model predicts this fraction would be approximately 27% in a universe that is most efficient at forming stars, compared to 23% in our own Universe. Dark energy makes the Universe expand faster, balancing gravity's pull and creating a universe where both expansion and structure formation are possible. However, for life to develop, there would need to be regions where matter can clump together to form stars and planets, and it would need to remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.
Crucially, the research suggests that the astrophysics of star formation and the evolution of the large-scale structure of the Universe combine in a subtle way to determine the optimal value of the dark energy density needed for the generation of intelligent life. Professor Lucas Lombriser, Université de Genève and co-author of the study, added: "It will be exciting to employ the model to explore the emergence of life across different universes and see whether some fundamental questions we ask ourselves about our own Universe must be reinterpreted."
The study was funded by the EU's European Research Council, and published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the news.
If we assume... (Score:4, Funny)
If we assume that conditions on Earth are optimal for the evolution of intelligent life then very little chance because I've checked Earth extensively and couldn't find any.
A Thousand Brains? (Or none at all?) (Score:2)
I'd like to add an early reference in the discussion to A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins. In the third part of the book (though the first part is the best) he addresses the topic from the perspective of creating a long-lasting "We were here" beacon. Essentially he suggests that huge artificial artifacts could be constructed in orbit around a star that would clearly indicate that intelligence life was nearby. (Not sure if he specified using a nearby star, but that seems obvious?) I think he's quite reason
Neither did the article authors (Score:2)
The probability is high (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Given how vast the universe is, I think the better question to ask is, "What is the likelihood that there isn't intelligent life elsewhere?"
Indeed, but yet there are no observable signs of intelligent life anywhere. Kardashev [wikipedia.org] Type 1 would be observable in nearby starts, Type 2 would be detectable to us anywhere in our galaxy and Type 3 would be detectable in a lot of visible galaxies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The probability is high (Score:3)
We're not Type 1, and all of them, especially 2 and 3 are high fantasy. Should be detectable in nearby stars... ok, like looking for Bigfoot behind the palm tree in your back yard.
Drawing a straight line of energy consumption out to arbitrary levels is as dumb as drawing population graphs out to infinity. A flourishing civilization may not EVER get to Type 1.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a problem with your question: you don't define "intelligent".
There are a number of nonhuman species (elephants, octopi, etc) on Earth that display some degree of intelligence, but wouldn't meet the "conventional" definition (technologically advanced civilization-builders).
"The problems that life has had to encounter here are not so different from the problems that life has had to encounter elsewhere."
That's not necessarily true. Earth has a lot of things going for it. Our star has stable energy outp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: The probability is high (Score:1)
Not the Question, Summary is Awful (Score:5, Informative)
Specifically there has been something called the anthropic principle where the apparent fine tuning of our universe's initial parameters to create a universe where life is possible is explained as us being one of an infinite multitude of universes but that only universes where intelligent life is possible have observers to see it. Think of it like a person in a dark room throwing a pair of dice where the light only gets turned on if one of the dice shows a '6'. In such a case you will never see a total less than '7' but that bias is because you only see throws where there is at least one 6, not that the dice are somehow weighted.
What this paper suggests is that we are not actually in a particularly fine-tuned universe based on star formation and there is a wide range of universes in which there should be sufficient star formation that life is likely assuming that the probability of observers is proportional to the amount of stars. So rather than being some deluded sci-fi attempt at calculating the probability of life which it does not do at all, it simply assumes that the probability of life is proportional to the amount of stars formed and tries to estimate the chance of us evolving in a universe with the observed cosmological parameters. The result is that it suggests that our universe does not seem to be particularly fine-tuned thus questioning the anthropic principle.
The problem here is that some idiot publicist/journalist has got hold of the paper and tried to hype it in a way that makes it sound far "sexier" but also far less scientific, than it actually is. This is actually decent science just hyped to make it sound instead like bad science fiction. Misrepresenting things like this to garner interest has to stop. We do science because it is important, not to gain likes on social media, and if this misrepresentation continues, then like the boy who cries wolf, when we do find something important and actually need people to pay attention and believe it, nobody will.
What in the world has happened to science? (Score:1, Troll)
Good Lord, a "scientific" paper using a "modeled" distribution of "dark" energy to predict the "emergence" of intelligent life via natural selection of randomly mutated changes in genetic structures?
That's the plot of a Sci-Fi novel.
Re: (Score:3)
Good Lord, a "scientific" paper using a "modeled" distribution of "dark" energy to predict the "emergence" of intelligent life via natural selection of randomly mutated changes in genetic structures?
That's the plot of a Sci-Fi novel.
Already been done to some extent. Life on a neutron star [wikipedia.org].
Not what the paper does (Score:2)
So to answer your question, what has happened to science is that the people
Assumptions (Score:3)
Since stars are a precondition for the emergence of life,
That's a rather large assumption, I would say. Energy of some kind is surely a precondition for life, but does it have to come from stars?
and it would need to remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.
Given that we have a sample size of 1, do you really feel confident assuming you know how long it takes for life to evolve?
Dark energy makes the Universe expand faster, balancing gravity's pull and creating a universe where both expansion and structure formation are possible.
These seem like inordinately confident assertions considering how little we actually know about dark energy.
Re: (Score:3)
Given that we have a sample size of 1, do you really feel confident assuming you know how long it takes for life to evolve?
Billions of years is likely an overestimate of what’s possible, but any life as it’s remotely defined needs to store information and process it in a way to evolve. So long periods of stability are likely a minimum requirement. It could be deep within a planet around an unstable star, it could possibly evolve on a gas planet without a usable surface, but it does need stability or its self replicating pattern is simply wiped away.
Re: (Score:1)
Dark energy works however they want it to work, since it only exists to make their math produce a correct answer. Don't try this at home, your teacher isn't going to fall for it, or that the dog ate your homework.
Nonesense (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
TRILLIONS is a relatively small number, cosmologically speaking.
TL; DR (Score:1)
Model makes many assumptions to come up +-100000% (Score:3)
Model makes many assumptions to come up an answer that is +-100000% .
I am not sure how a model that estimates various things that we actually have zero idea about (or even what is or if it actually exists--dark energy/matter), could come up with a useful answer.
Maybe as a though experiment.
But probably Garbage in/Garbage out.
Plenty of versions of the Drake Equation out there (Score:2)
Plate tectonics (Score:2)
More evidence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Are we on the verge of publicly having contact with other civilizations?
Yes. By 2050 it will be common knowledge that they are already here.
You will still put your pants on one leg at a time, pay your taxes, and take out your garbage. **YAWN.**
That said, there is a very interesting book Allies of Humanity [academia.edu] that explains "first" contact is the LEAST of our worries. We need to be on guard against those that would make us dependent upon them by offering us free gifts such as technology and be united in o
Misleading headline (Score:2)
And on earth? (Score:2)
Given the results of the last election (Score:2)
Stars and Water and Light ... (Score:1)
Science is supposed to be a process that is based on observed facts, reason, hypothesis, testing, conclusion, and repeatability.
AT NO POINIT ANYWHERE has anyone using "science" ever realistically showed that life requires a star "nearby." The energy from a star is necessary for OUR brand of life, but has exactly zero implications for ALL flavors of life.
AT NO PIONT ANYWHERE has anyone using "science" ever realistically showed that life requires water. Water is crucial to OUR brand of life. All the excite
Re: (Score:2)
Uncertainty (Score:2)
And if uncertainty was included in this calculation, the probability could be show to be between the values of zero and one.
Probability of a single event (Score:2)
This is what is known as a meaningless quantity.
The probability of outcome of a trial repeated many dozens or hundreds of times is more meaningful. But still needs a fairly hefty asterisk attached.
Selective (Score:2)
This formula makes a lot of assumptions based on our own evolution, but does so selectively. For example, the fact that we exist means the odds of intelligent life evolving are 100%, but this formula ignores that reality while including preconditions for intelligent life drawn from our own history, such as the idea that it requires billions of years to arise. In reality, we don't know whether our timeline is typical any more than we know the statistical significance of our own existence. We only have a s
Re: (Score:2)
> In reality, we don't know whether our timeline is typical any more than we know the statistical significance of our own existence
The only reasonable working assumption until we have more data is that our environment is dead average amongst environments with the potential to evolve intelligent technologically advanced life.
> Even on our own planet, all available evidence suggests that it has only happened once.
There is reason to believe that abiogenesis should be inevitable in conditions like those o
It "can" be used (Score:2)
To calculate...
Yeah...it can.
Itdoesn't mean , just like the models before it, that this model is correct either.