Thanks for watching everyone and thanks to our sponsor, CuriosityStream. You can sign up for CuriosityStream here: curiositystream.com/CoolWorlds. Let us us know down what your thoughts on this video! Are there any other aspects about the Solar System you think could be rare or common?
No one talks about our collision with Theia which produced our large moon, added to the mass of Earth and the combined magnetospheres which protected primitive life appearing on the early Earth.
Most of the stars out there are red dwarves, so being around a star like the Sun is already a big abnormality. Being on an outer branch of a spiral galaxy is another big abnormality - most stars would be in the galactic core.
Then throw in a lack of hot Jupiters, all of our gas giants being far from our star, the Earth's uniquely large moon (relative to the planet). Yeah, our solar system is a little weird already, and we haven't even gotten to things like how many star systems have mid-system asteroid belts.
@@colinsmith1495 we don't know enough solar systems to jump into conclusions.. If we knew about 500,000.. Ok... But 6000 is too few... We may find out that having asteroid belts is irrelevant and most life is created in moons, not planets... So maybe being like our solar system is not a good thing per se
I found this video while catching up on email, and also while a PBS program was beaming in the background. (I know-running multiple media is not good for attentive sentience.) Suddenly I realized both PBS and Cool Worlds were discussing exo-planets! But sadly, the public television effort was far inferior to Dr. Kipping’s. I suppose they have a larger audience, which is less likely to self-select for science-obsessions, on average. So their breadth must exceed the depth, a target-audience formulation that inverts the mission of our wonderful Cool Worlds. However, I wouldn’t mind a “Poldark on Proxima B” episode of CW!
Really appreciate the work you do on this channel Professor Kipping. You're undoubtedly inspiring a new generation of students to look up at the stars in wonder and amazement. Keep it up!
@@saurabhrao1981 No, pretty sure he is in a forest. He sits down on a log in one take and later on in the video there is a bit of wind hitting the mic.
Yeah if I remember correctly they used to call it WORK!! Back in the "old days" people took pride in what they did....and it showed.....Nice work, well done....keep it up..
I love the idea of squinting at a blindingly dim light in a roaring and infinite dark, waiting for it to blink. And when it does, celebrating with fever dream maths and statistics
Perhaps one could say that 99.9999999% of all creatures to have ever existed did not have access to this content or could not comprehend what it even means (looking at my cat).
Aside from being in the Goldilocks zone, circular orbits, and having a gas giant shield I suspect a large stabilizing moon is a prerequisite for complex life. Looking at our limited sample size I imagine such moons are rare. The odds of a collision or capture being at just the right angle seems improbable.
Also considering that a large moon to an earth-sized planet becomes the recycling engine for that planet by displacing the baricenter of the pairing away from the planet's center and (at least in the earth's case) into the mantle where the density changes thus caused drive things to move around.
@@williammaddock9179 Don't forget that Earth has a pretty strong magnetic field, which might have been caused by the impact that created our moon and gave it a "stronger engine." That and our sun is somewhat gentle when it comes to solar storms, meaning that our atmosphere was more likely to survive and not be stripped away like other similar planets potentially. Truly interesting that a specific event could be so key.
@@Brswing But main stream media and MANY THEORIES state electricity doesnt play a major role in space even though the magnetosphere protects us and allows life to form...and magnetism doesnt exist without and electric field/circuit. 🤐
It seems like many scientists are afraid of the weak anthropic principle, maybe because the name unfortunately could imply humanity in particular. But stripped down to the basics, it simply says that intelligent life is where it is, because it can't be anywhere else. And that is regardless of the odds, which thus precludes the use of the mediocrity principle in the discussion. I like that this video does not shy away from that, and in fact challenges us to consider it as a more realistic starting point.
@@ollllj That idea relies on intelligent life (let alone just life period) arising in red dwarf systems. And that's probably never going to happen. Hence the thesis of this video.
Even if life is extremely rare like some insane 0.00000000000001% chance or whatever, I'd wager it still exists *somewhere else* than just here. Pretty bold to think that in 13+ billion light years, we must be alone, without having even stepped out of our backyard to explore and verify that claim. A lot of people incorrectly think we've scanned the universe more so than we really have. The fact is, the search has only scraped the tip of the ice berg and only just begun. And we don't necessarily need to see intelligent life, even just seeing microbial life exists outside of earth would be quite the confirmation that life is very possible elsewhere. The distances being so vast, we can only do so much. Also, the farther you go, the more back in time you're looking at things, which poses another problem when you wish to explore the farther depths of the universe. So it may be life is very rare, but given enough time, distance, and probability, there are high odds at least another life form exists elsewhere even if not intelligent yet.
@@WildWombats The basic idea is that life is either very rare (perhaps even unique) or it is abundant. The fact that we see only one type of life on earth (from a single common DNA ancestor) and worse still no other life anywhere else means that we are probably looking (at best) at measurements of number of galaxies per bio-genesis event instead of the other way around. And if we are the only life in the galaxy, or the local group, then other life elsewhere is irrelevant since we would never be able to effectively interact with it. In fact we would probably never even know about it, so that's more philosophy than science.
"...the only way for the universe to know itself". Such a cool line. Reminds me of the most profound graffiti I ever read in a truck stop. "Man is a manifestation of the universe contemplating itself". Thank you for such great content.
Very fascinating. I'm glad you mentioned our moon. I read, long ago, that our large moon helps stabilize the Earth's axis. And that relative stability is what makes complex life forms possible by having a slower change to climate, which is needed for lifeforms to adapt and flourish. In the same place, I read that Jupiter intercepts things from the outer system which would likely bombard us. Same with the moon.
some of what you are talking about is out of date - or rather, the idea that those things are as needed as they seem was massively overestimated in the past. Even given all of that, we get stuff capable of wiping out a lot of species on fairly regular timeframes.
Great points. But since the Earth is 81 times the mass of the Moon, Earth should intercept a lot of things that, in its absence, would likely bombard the Moon:). Stay safe in the age of plague.
A planet that is subject to frequent major impacts would not be hospitable for the development of complex life. The galactic nucleus and dense star clusters would be subject to frequent supernovae and radiation bursts.
The greatest thoughts and discoveries of the Universe to ever unfold, presented to us in storyform through pristine narration, always. I just wish you would post more often.
20:00 even "sun-like stars" = only 10% (according to Wikipedia "Solar analog"-page). So 10 sunlike stars with 10% of those having Jupiter-sized (1% of all stars); only 25% have a Jupiter-like orbit (so 0.25%); with systems with a Jupiter but without a super-Earth/sub-Neptune being the left over of 1.2+/-0.5 (most favourable option is 70%), this results in a star system "like ours" (in terms of just looking at the Jupiter part (wayy too opimistic, I guess) is only 0.175%. I guess we should be happy that there are a lot of stars.
One thing I've always struggled with is "How do you objectively define unusual?". Is flipping coins and getting ten heads in a row unusual, compared to getting say HTTTHTHHTT? Is an egg falling on the floor and forming a perfect circle of debris unusual, compared to some other "messier" but specific distribution of debris? Or in this case, are the presence of sub-Neptunes, a Jupiter analog, and near-circular orbits a valid - and unique - way to define unusual stellar systems? If we were to randomly pick some other stellar system, and have good data on its planets and their orbits, would we stand a good chance of finding IT was unusual compared to other systems - but based on some other set of variables than the three above? Could it be that inhabitants of MOST stellar systems would find theirs "unusual", but in ways very different than the ones we've noted? Or to put it another way, whether we are unusual is closely tied to the question of "what variables determine fertile ground for life to develop?" In that regard, I DO think circular orbits is a valid one to pick out. And presence of a Jupiter could be important as well. However I don't think we can say one way or the other regarding presence of sub-Neptunes. Still, we don't know what OTHER variables might play important roles in opening the doors to life, even in our own system, and certainly not in others. In the landscape of possible combinations of variables, there might be MANY islands that are friendly to life -- some of which have virtually nothing in common with our own.
It’s never been that deep fam. I get you and agree mostly, but your forgoing the only important part of the question. And that is comparatively, are we unusual compared to others. It doesn’t matter what we philosophically break down. We are the standard to measure our peers by. Don’t even care to read the rest of your comment. You got to deep in the sauce and started making no sense
This video does mention that hot Jupiters are also unusual. To answer some others maybe look at the reasons why some of the list of criteria are there. A large planet far out from the sun is considered important because it attracts meteorites towards it and away from the inner solar system where the habitable zone is. So another position for Jupiter maybe around a different type of star might do the same thing. That could lead to other consequences that affect the chance of life though. The data from Kepler is public so someone could search it with there own set of requirements. We are only looking for the criteria we do because we have one data point where we can observe them for real. Until we find more examples of life any other criteria and the affect on life have to be modelled. Which is a much less sound basis to draw a conclusion.
Yup. The question then isn’t ‘Is there anyone out there?’ And more ‘Is anybody out there close enough to matter?’ If the nearest civilisation is on the other side of the galaxy - or even a whole other galaxy - then we are functionally alone since we will never be aware of each others existence.
Almost all of the media I consume these days aside from reading is here on RUclips. I have a LOT of channel subscriptions, most of which I actively watch and participate in their respective communities and I have to say, this is the best content out there. Everything about it is just wonderful, my only complaint is that there's not more of it but such is the price of quality. I feel like you've picked up Carl Sagan's torch and ran with it and I'm really thankful to you for doing what you do.
“Somewhere in me is a curiosity sensor. I want to know what's over the next hill. You know, people can live longer without food than without information. Without information, you'd go crazy.” i love this channel 👾
As always, extremely on point and perfectly explained. Regarding "mediocrity", I totally agree that reasoning by means of pure philosophical principles is simply not as strong as observational data. In one case we are dealing with our internal workings about what we think it ought to be and in the later we are dealing with nature explaining us what it really is. There could be "others" like us or we could be alone, but in the end we would never know by pure idalistic reasoning, we need experiments and observations to start the conversation with nature. No amount of mediocrity, copernican and "large odds because large numbers" arguments will get us closer to the answer. We only have one data point and it tells us that Earth-like planets are possible outcomes of physical processes in the universe and with certainty (that's it for the moment). In any case lets dig into the philosophy here for a moment: The principle of mediocrity is, IMO, very vague in its definition and we should stop claiming it makes for a humble view of our place in the Universe. Is it really humble to assume that everything in the cosmos must be similar to what humans are experience around them? This reminds me of the time when Huygens speculated about aliens on the moons of Jupiter and assumed they would be anthropomorphic, have sail ships and obviusly dress in consonance with 17th century european fashion. That is a very antropocentric (if not ethnocentric) and anti-copernican way in which the principle of mediocrity can be applied. I think the principle of mediocrity goes against the idea that "we are not the center of the Universe" instead of supporting it. I also think there are some statistical fallacies working behind the scenes: If we assume a uniform distribution of any variable with small random fluctuations then we would be right to conclude that a single value of that distribution is representative of the entirety of values, we would be right to use the mediocrity principle. But here, with Earth like planets, we are using it to conclude that the distribution should be quite uniform (which is the premise on which the mediocrity principle works on). If your conclusion is your premise then the entire reasoning lacks any relevance and is just a convoluted way of saying "I have faith in this statement". We don't know the actual distribution of Earth like planets, we don't know if their existence is highly dependent on stellar characteristics, systems architectures, etc... We could use the mediocrity principle if we assumed that the existence of Earth-like planets was largely independent of any other metrics, but that is not how scientific reasoning works. Earth and Earth-like planets are formed by mechanisms that need to have basic components to work. We don't know how many of those components are needed to actually make one of these planets nor how many different mechanism could give a an Earth-like planet nor what is their frequency of occurrence, but for sure there's a lot of possible processes and lots of possible outcomes, and if an historical principle of science has to be applied here is that science is a way of discovering how diverse the processes and the outcomes are in nature. Using the mediocrity principle for the serach of Earth-like planets, or extraterrestrial life has always been a very poor way of understanding copernicanism. I think this is also interesting for another common argument; the large numbers - large odds fallacy. When you tell people that there are around 10^25 planets and large moons in the observable universe they tend to jump and exclaim "how could we be alone?". This is funny for many reasons but, IMO, in the context of what we are dealing with here it makes me think that when people hear "10^25 planets" they are thinking "10^25 Earths". They project themselves and our world to everything instantly because we in general don't have a sense of the diversity we could encounter. We just assume the unifrom distribution right away and get deceived by that. Almost no one thinks the other extreme: "there could be 10^25 worlds, each of those with completely different chemical processes, physical phenomena, geologic histories and atmospheric evolutions, like we found on our own Solar System (with almost each planet and Moon having their own identity and very little clustering in parameter space, with almost no correlation between properties between them)", but perhaps that should be the way of thinking. Perhaps the universe is largely devoid of life forms and Earth-like planets and the vast diversity of worlds we will discover in the next century could tell us a story where there are physical fenomena as outstanding and spectacular as life itself but that have nothing to do with life. perhaps we are too egocentric to realise. Or perhaps not. We will see what the instruments have to say.
Indeed! I think we should be open to the snowflake possibility, every world is different, every chemical system is slightly different and life is just one of the outcomes. But of course we should also be open to much more popular view that’s life is common too- both are largely consistent with current data.
@@CoolWorldsLab Totally agree. One of my points is that it is sad we don't tend to see the "snowflake hypothesis" as fascinating as the "extraterrestrials everywhere" one. Is more of a cultural topic than a scientific one, but is interesting to notice that bias towards one explanation only in science communication, books and movies. We will need a lot of time to incline the balance towards one possibility or the other since the high fidelity data will come later. Perhaps we will wait for centuries. I hope that, in the long run, humanity doesn't get bored with the search and people start seen SETI and exoplanetary research as a waste of time due to their past expectations. We must be patient and have our expectations in place.
The bias toward life as we know it and worlds as we know it is steep. It would not shock if Hoyle Dark Clouds like beings are more the norm, or so forth.
The real problem here is men & woman of the sciences, starting with the Conclusion of the scientific method, that the Universe & all life have NATURAL(laws) origins, even though there is zero scientific evidence. The categorization of all Life is in accordance to the belief that all Life today evolved from a common ancestor that nature made 1 or 2 billion years ago. Again. No evidence but this is now part of the sciences and accepted as fact. Likewise with the Big Bang fact which shows that there was a beginning to the Universe & a highly likely UNNATURAL beginning to the Universe, most believe the Universe was NATURALLY made 13.7 billion years ago and evolved into the "expanding" universe we have today. Again, there is no evidence that energy, matter, time & space required for the Universe came into existence NATURALLY but you have physicists constantly making up new stories(hypothesis) to explain how the Universe was not .. UNNATURALLY made. This bad science of state something is a fact with no evidence needs to stop. You do not start with the Conclusion, with the scientific method. WTH? If there is no data clearly showing a Natural explanation ... then you must at the least consider the "God Hypothesis." A machine is a physical function .. that requires specific matter, energy, time & space .. in order to exist and to function. All machines are unnaturally made, & made to function. All machines require something with intelligence to make them, and to impart a function or purpose. Nature & natural processes over any period of time can NEVER make a machine or make it function. These are the facts( of Science) from the Machine Category ..... which identifies anything that is a machine. There is no evidence that the Universe & all Life ... were NATURALLY made ... and there never will be. The Universe & all Life ... are machines. The Universe is a closed NATURAL system with finite energy & matter, and fixed laws of physics ... that is expanding in .... an open infinite UNNATURAL system that has its own UNNATURAL laws. The Natural System has intelligent life so it is only reasonable and logical to say the UNNATURAL system has something with intelligence. The Life in the NATURAL systems are specific physical functions according to the laws of Nature ... and must be UNNATURALLY made. by something with intelligence. The Natural System itself is a specific physical function according to the Laws of Nature ... and must be UNNATURALLY made by something with intelligence. Follow the science. All the data clearly shows the UNNATURAL origins of the Universe & Life. Stop the bad science of stating something is a fact of science, with zero evidence, and taking this bias into the scientific method explaining natural phenomena.
@@abelincoln8885 God hypothesis? The problem with that is that, even if true, it doesn't help at all nor gives valuable info. Let's say the universe was created by some kind of god (or gods). Now you just make a new problem: what created that god, capable of creating universes? I mean, that god must be incredibly complex, UNNATURALLY made, so if it was created by a higher being you just made a cycle of gods, explaining nothing. If you say "well, that god wasn't created", then why that statement cannot be true for the universe? Compared to a god that can create a universe, the universe itself must be way simpler, more natural.
9:10 You know, you don't save any time or effort by saying "JWST" instead of "James Webb Space Telescope". They have the same number of syllables. And observations like this are the reason I'm single.
What a great teacher you are. Even if, because of my own intellectual limitations, I only get 10% of what you are explaining, my understanding of "where we are, how we got here and WHY" is enriched 100%. Thank you for reaching out to the masses and giving the wannabe nerds a place to call home!
Small Correction: An eccentricity greater than 1 does not correspond to a parabolic trajectory. An eccentricity greater than 1 corresponds to a hyperbolic trajectory. Parabolic trajectories are that special case of an eccentricity of exactly 1. Eccentricity of Conic Sections e = 0: Circle 0
Another amazing video. I am so grateful for a channel like this, always gets me thinking about things in a different way and questioning the 'normal' thoughts about the universe and our place in it. Truly the definition of real science, no bias and an ability to completely accept the evidence and its potential consequences, no matter how much it goes against the grain of typical theories
There is no evidence that Nature created Life ... but it is believed to be a fact of science. However, the Function & Machine Categories prove the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by something with immense intelligence & power. So who is biased and not accepting the evidence?
Where will you be 100 years from now, Heaven or Hell? Jesus said, “no one can see the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born again” (John 3:3) The bible says, “the person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:20) The bible says, “all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire” (Revelation 21:8) Are you a Christian? Do you love Jesus more than anyone or anything else? (Matthew 10:37-39) Take this test from the bible to know if you are saved or lost. 1. Are you becoming more like Jesus every day? (Romans 8:29) 2. Would people say you walk in the light, or walk in the darkness? (1 John 1:6-7) 3. Do you admit and confess your sin? (1 John 1:8) 4. Are you obedient to God's Word? (1 John 2:3-5) 5. Does your life indicate you love God rather than the world? (1 John 2:15) 6. Is your life characterized by "doing what is right"? (1 John 2:29) 7. Have you stopped continually sinning? (1 John 3:9-10) 8. Do you “have the son”(living inside by His Holy Spirit) (1 John 5:11) 9. Do you demonstrate love for other Christians? (1 John 3:14) 10. Do you "walk the walk," versus just "talking the talk"? (1 John 3:18-19) 11. Do you maintain a clear conscience? (1 John 3:21) 12. Do you experience victory in your Christian walk? (1 John 5:4) If you are able to truthfully answer "Yes" to these questions (or a majority of them, and are seeing progress on the others), then your life is bearing the fruit of true salvation. Jesus said that it is by our fruits that we are known as His disciples (Matthew 7:20). Fruitless branches-professing believers who do not display the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) are cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:7). Repent of your sins and ask God to give you the gifts of repentance and faith. (Ephesians 2;8) Cry out to God: “have mercy on me a sinner” (Luke 18:13) Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved” (Acts 16:31) Jesus said, “you must be born again” (John 3:7)
@@pastorpeteonthestreet3112 How do you know no life will ever be found elsewhere? I could understand someone thinking that way a long time ago, but now we know there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the observable universe, with countless planets orbiting stars.. Everywhere we look we see the same chemistry, the same physics.. Earth is only one planet out of who knows how many, so no one can be certain whether there is life anywhere else or not. There may even be life on moons, there may be life that isn't even carbon based; we just have no idea at this point.
@@abelincoln8885 If you are so certain your claims are correct, then why haven't you published all your data and evidence? Why do we only see YT comments from you? Until your work is published in relevant journals, it can simply be dismissed, as it's just opinion.
@@SuperYtc1 like it or not humanity and all life on earth IS special. It is unique within our solar system, and, according to all of our information, unique within our immediate solar community.
Wow. One of the most fascinating astronomy videos I've ever watched. The next decade is going to be very exciting with the JWST and other advanced telescopes, hopefully we will get a better idea of the rate of habitable zone planets around sun like stars, and also red dwarfs since they are far more common. Lots of unanswered questions still about the potential for life, but it's so intriguing that it seems like our solar system is not a dime a dozen. Amazing stuff, we are privileged to be able to start to piece together such profound mysteries in our age.
David, given your field of specialism, I can’t imagine how exciting James Webb must be for you. Have you ever looked forward to anything as much? Because for me, I’m already foaming at the mouth with excitement!
Great video. An honest assessment of the uniqueness of our solar system. It's refreshingly honest compared to discussions where it's taken as a given that we can't be anything but normal.
One of my thoughts that keeps coming back to me: Earth is highly unusual. It does not have the starting core material that it would have collected in natural planetary formation. The planet that collided with us, resulting in our Moon formation, resulted in approximately 1.3 times the Earths inner core material than would be normal. Maybe it takes this injection of additional material, that keeps the geology, and magnetosphere active- long enough for Life to take root. The other planets in our own solar system, with their typical formation amount of core materials, have by this time solidified, losing their magnetosphere, and their atmosphere, resulting in worlds like Mars. Maybe Mars is the typical planet model- its formative amount of interior material will never result in the world being geologically active and shielded 4.5 billion years later. the core will solidify, and the atmosphere surface water lost. Earth continues on with a strong magnetic field protecting it highlights our worlds uniqueness. With this model, how likely are other worlds Out There likely to have any sort of Magnetosphere, any sort of retained atmosphere, after a typical 4.5 billion years for life to evolve?
Mars had a major collision too - that is why the northern half is miles lower than the southern. The collision was just smaller than Earth's so no moon.....
This is great. Both informative and enjoyable. You may have covered this in another video, but I've heard that it was recently determined that the rarity of phosphorus in the universe places an unexpectedly large restriction on both the occurrence of life in the universe and the total "biological carrying capacity" of our galaxy. I'd love to get your thoughts on this.
Professor I don't know how you keep up with your work schedule and make new videos so often but I profoundly enjoy your views. I am a finance professor, your videos provide a little breathing air from the usual financial markets stuff. Lucky to be able to watch you from 8000 km away.
Considering just the sheer amount of stars in a single galaxy and assuming that only 1% of the stars share a solar system similar to ours, you still have an incredibly massive number. You could even take 1% of that number and you'd still have a massive amount solar systems. Take 1% of that number and you guessed it, still a massive amount of stars. To think our solar system and Earth's ability to sustain life is the only one in our galaxy let alone the universe is similar to believing without any shred of a doubt that you can win the Powerball several times in a row.
10:32 this seems like an odd data point to bring up because of the previously mentioned short observation window. If you pull from four years of data only planets
a minor point: you say the % of G star like our sun is 10%, but when I look at 250 closest stars, which show more red dwarfs stars than bigger collections, it is only about %5 of the closer stars which are G. More over our Sun is solo, which is only about 25-30% of all G stars - do not know if that has an effect, but it makes our system more rare. And in addition, our Sun is a very calm star, many G and other stars have flares, we are not certain why our Sun is this way. And I am sure you can name many other things that make our Solar System rare, you just did not have time for it.
I've been recently been thinking that going back to my "Earth is quite unique" over "the number of similarities must be high" is the safer bet. Time is the other variable that I'm not sure anyone has good enough comprehension of.
Love these videos, the rational and well-argued points like these are as rare as our planet's features may be. Other channels basically serve a wish-fulfillment agenda, and try to reassure our anxiety of solitude by proposing a swarm of aliens lurking everywhere. Its refreshing to be treated as an adult.
Great video I agree, but this isn't a foregone conclusion that alien civilizations aren't within our galaxy (though IMHO they are probably relatively uncommon). There are rocky planets around the habitable zones of red dwarfs, which are far more common. It's a highly interesting result to learn our system may be unusual to some degree for G type stars, but that's all it is right now.
Yes to both, we simply know about intelligent life but we should keep an open mind to both possibilities, the little data we have is consistent with the unusual scenario
I can't express how much I love you and your content. I don't get a chance to speak about this stuff with people I know, so this really scratches an itch. On another note, if I can humbly suggest a subject for a video, if you haven't done so already, I'd love to see a terraforming Mars, right up to adjusting gravity. I think it would complement your terraforming Venus vid. Thanks.
People have been obsessed for decades with the idea that we're not "special", despite having no evidence either way. It's good to see the discussion becoming evidence-based
Half the questions in this video starting with where the sub-neptune in our system is are answered by “it’s probably Jupiter’s fault in some way” with decent certainty.
I'm worried by our (humankind's) tendency and ability to destroy ourselves. In my opinion - we are an especially bad solution to the universe's need for self-awareness. :(
What wasn't mentioned (possibly outside the scope of this video) is that the criteria for planets that can support simple lifeforms is far less than those needed for complex lifeforms. And then there is the unknown criteria for intelligent lifeforms. Given what we know so far, stating that it's a miracle that we exist at all isn't hyperbole.
Gosh. I also remember hearing somewhere that the time it took for 1 single cell organism to develop into multicellular life was something like Billions of years. Which I find odd. Like if all the conditions for life to develop are met. Then surely it should be less of a seremdipitous occurance that created multicellular life than is evidenced. It really seems like the universe is not designed for life haha. Also, what are your favourite exo- planets? Do we have enough information to determine characteristics in a meaningful way? and are we close to being able to increase our ability to discern exo planet characteristics?
Multicellular individuals might not be quite as serendipitous as you might think: if Wikipedia's to be believed, all eukaryotic kingdoms evolved it separately, with some evolving it multiple times. That this evolution isn't seen amongst prokaryotes(though some do exhibit multicellular behavior, all do so as multiple individuals) makes it reasonable to assume that something about being a eukaryote is a requirement; since all eukaryotes share a common progenitor, it would seem the critical event that created eukaryotes is what is rare or unlikely.
Wow, that's a great video. I very much like the presenter. He seems extremely knowledgeable and serious. He isn't "giving the public what the public wants to have" - a million civilizations in our own galaxy - and instead he carefully presents the serious prospect that, yes, we might be alone in the Milky Way. Thank you so much for your serious, honest words!
Could life be present on Moons of Jupiter analogs with eccentric orbits and how could it adapt to the drastic changes in distance to it's Star? Just staying curious here. Love your work Professor Kipping. You are an inspiration to many.
@@ChinnuWoW not necessarily there are infinite universes with Infinite possibilities. I’m only conscious of this world reality that’s why “ I Appreciate “ living in this world reality. 🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿😀👨🏿⚕️👨🏿⚕️👀
It is believed that the reason we don’t have a “Hot Jupiter” is because Saturn formed and pulled it back from it spiralling inwards towards the Sun. So to me Saturn will always be king 🙃
I was watching the video and I literally had the same thought, that “the universe is trying to tell us something “ just before you said it! A very informative video. Obviously still a lot to learn, but I’m becoming ever more supportive of the Rare Earth hypothesis as a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
This video is so damn good that the only flaw I can find is the jarringly abrupt disappearing star light at 18:38 . And even this is not directly his fault ! Bravo !
Hey man, I'm in college for engineering right now, but I'm seriously considering going into astronomy and physics instead. I'm hoping you could provide some insight into the field. What is the work in astronomy like? What are the kind of jobs astronomers hold? What has your career been like? Thanks for the help!
Good work. I feel like there are a lot of variables that get overlooked in the idea that Earth and our solar system are typically from the activity of red dwarves to the goldilocks zone between having plate tectonics and a core active enough to protect the planet from it's star but not so active that a supervolcano resets civilization back to the stone age every time it tries to get started.
It’s honestly cool and philosophical in a way that the more we get out there in the universe, we find out more about ourselves and our existence than we ever could simply staying here.
Your narration is soothing and quality of the video is exceptional. Instantly subscribed to your channel. Kind request to please post a video describing the "Axis of evil" problem in cosmology.
I wish it was possible to take an actual class with Professor Kipping. I always feel like I have learned much after watching one of his videos. I also find his tone to be calming and very easy to listen to. I could sit through hours and hours of his lectors. I guess in a way I have, I have lost count of how many of his videos I have watched.
8:31 - Unless I'm mistaken, in that chart, you fail to take into account the grey boxes, which show that, for example, there are likely to be far more planets of Earth's size at the same distance as Earth's orbit than "sub-Neptunes" or "super-Earths". If correct, this kind of defeats the whole purpose of your video. It seems that we just have a hard time detecting planets that are smaller and have larger orbits (which is something you mentioned yourself in this very video). Also, even if we're "special", that doesn't mean that most of the rest are similar. There can be an immense variety of "special" solar systems, depending on what we're looking for. For example, if we're focusing on a solar system with a hot Jupiter-like planet, and we just lump all solar systems together that don't have a hot Jupiter-like planet, then that solar system would be "special" and ours would just be among the rest. That isn't really the case, because we can probably find ways in which each solar system is "special" in its own way. I agree that the Earth with life is not "common" among planets, but I take issue with some of the other inferences you make in this video.
The opening credits/title sequence for Cool Worlds Lab where those four objects circle an unseen mass has now taken on for me the same level of emotional anticipation and wonder as the opening credits for logos of MGM Lion's roaring, the cute lamp for PIXAR, 20th Century Fox and it's searchlights with brass heavy orchestra, and of course Universal Pictures with Earth spinning at sunrise. Just magic and meaning.
Thanks for watching everyone and thanks to our sponsor, CuriosityStream. You can sign up for CuriosityStream here: curiositystream.com/CoolWorlds. Let us us know down what your thoughts on this video! Are there any other aspects about the Solar System you think could be rare or common?
Thanks for the cool video. It spoke more to my mathematician side than my astronomical curiosity.
Is our lack of a super earth due to it being split into earth and mars? 😉
@@FHBStudio Good point. The theory is earth was larger but collided with another body which then formed our present earth and the moon.
Can't super-earths also be infested with life?
No one talks about our collision with Theia which produced our large moon, added to the mass of Earth and the combined magnetospheres which protected primitive life appearing on the early Earth.
Most of the stars out there are red dwarves, so being around a star like the Sun is already a big abnormality. Being on an outer branch of a spiral galaxy is another big abnormality - most stars would be in the galactic core.
Reminds me of that EA game called spore
Then throw in a lack of hot Jupiters, all of our gas giants being far from our star, the Earth's uniquely large moon (relative to the planet). Yeah, our solar system is a little weird already, and we haven't even gotten to things like how many star systems have mid-system asteroid belts.
Our sun may also be unusual even when compared to other suns of the same type in regards to it being so relatively benign.
@@colinsmith1495 we don't know enough solar systems to jump into conclusions.. If we knew about 500,000.. Ok... But 6000 is too few... We may find out that having asteroid belts is irrelevant and most life is created in moons, not planets... So maybe being like our solar system is not a good thing per se
I found this video while catching up on email, and also while a PBS program was beaming in the background. (I know-running multiple media is not good for attentive sentience.)
Suddenly I realized both PBS and Cool Worlds were discussing exo-planets! But sadly, the public television effort was far inferior to Dr. Kipping’s. I suppose they have a larger audience, which is less likely to self-select for science-obsessions, on average. So their breadth must exceed the depth, a target-audience formulation that inverts the mission of our wonderful Cool Worlds.
However, I wouldn’t mind a “Poldark on Proxima B” episode of CW!
Really appreciate the work you do on this channel Professor Kipping. You're undoubtedly inspiring a new generation of students to look up at the stars in wonder and amazement. Keep it up!
Yes!!! This!!
I agree I wish there was someone like this for physics too😁
@@timothycivis8757 there is, and his name is Prof. Brian Cox and he’s been inspiring me for decades !
@@EdinMike The Brian Cox documentaries are so good. I've watched Wonders of the Universe countless times already.
We ARE special because God created us. No other life in the universe will ever be found.
The addition of the forest background is soooo cool! I love to see that there's a large amount of effort being put into these videos
My high mind failed to detect he was not actually in a forest.
@@saurabhrao1981 No, pretty sure he is in a forest. He sits down on a log in one take and later on in the video there is a bit of wind hitting the mic.
I agree the forest backdrop was one of my favourite aesthetic touches :)
@@stealthyshiroean yeah my question is how he for such good audio outside like that (except for that bit of wind at the end)
Yeah if I remember correctly they used to call it WORK!! Back in the "old days" people took pride in what they did....and it showed.....Nice work, well done....keep it up..
I love the idea of squinting at a blindingly dim light in a roaring and infinite dark, waiting for it to blink. And when it does, celebrating with fever dream maths and statistics
I think we're pretty unusual in the sense that we have access to such amazing content like this
Perhaps one could say that 99.9999999% of all creatures to have ever existed did not have access to this content or could not comprehend what it even means (looking at my cat).
😄
Aside from being in the Goldilocks zone, circular orbits, and having a gas giant shield I suspect a large stabilizing moon is a prerequisite for complex life. Looking at our limited sample size I imagine such moons are rare. The odds of a collision or capture being at just the right angle seems improbable.
Ye we’re hoping to of course answer this with our moon hunting
Also considering that a large moon to an earth-sized planet becomes the recycling engine for that planet by displacing the baricenter of the pairing away from the planet's center and (at least in the earth's case) into the mantle where the density changes thus caused drive things to move around.
There are sun tides that could help along microbial life from water to land, the moon isnt the only thing that gives us tides
@@williammaddock9179 Don't forget that Earth has a pretty strong magnetic field, which might have been caused by the impact that created our moon and gave it a "stronger engine." That and our sun is somewhat gentle when it comes to solar storms, meaning that our atmosphere was more likely to survive and not be stripped away like other similar planets potentially. Truly interesting that a specific event could be so key.
@@Brswing
But main stream media and MANY THEORIES state electricity doesnt play a major role in space even though the magnetosphere protects us and allows life to form...and magnetism doesnt exist without and electric field/circuit. 🤐
It seems like many scientists are afraid of the weak anthropic principle, maybe because the name unfortunately could imply humanity in particular. But stripped down to the basics, it simply says that intelligent life is where it is, because it can't be anywhere else. And that is regardless of the odds, which thus precludes the use of the mediocrity principle in the discussion. I like that this video does not shy away from that, and in fact challenges us to consider it as a more realistic starting point.
"grabby aliens" has some reasonable staticstics, that do away with antrophic principles.
@@ollllj That idea relies on intelligent life (let alone just life period) arising in red dwarf systems. And that's probably never going to happen. Hence the thesis of this video.
Even if life is extremely rare like some insane 0.00000000000001% chance or whatever, I'd wager it still exists *somewhere else* than just here. Pretty bold to think that in 13+ billion light years, we must be alone, without having even stepped out of our backyard to explore and verify that claim. A lot of people incorrectly think we've scanned the universe more so than we really have. The fact is, the search has only scraped the tip of the ice berg and only just begun. And we don't necessarily need to see intelligent life, even just seeing microbial life exists outside of earth would be quite the confirmation that life is very possible elsewhere. The distances being so vast, we can only do so much. Also, the farther you go, the more back in time you're looking at things, which poses another problem when you wish to explore the farther depths of the universe. So it may be life is very rare, but given enough time, distance, and probability, there are high odds at least another life form exists elsewhere even if not intelligent yet.
@@WildWombats The basic idea is that life is either very rare (perhaps even unique) or it is abundant. The fact that we see only one type of life on earth (from a single common DNA ancestor) and worse still no other life anywhere else means that we are probably looking (at best) at measurements of number of galaxies per bio-genesis event instead of the other way around. And if we are the only life in the galaxy, or the local group, then other life elsewhere is irrelevant since we would never be able to effectively interact with it. In fact we would probably never even know about it, so that's more philosophy than science.
Science is afraid that they cant explain that we are alone.
"...the only way for the universe to know itself". Such a cool line. Reminds me of the most profound graffiti I ever read in a truck stop. "Man is a manifestation of the universe contemplating itself". Thank you for such great content.
That was Carl Sagan who said it in the first episode of Cosmos.
@@EricMalette thanks for that.
@@EricMalette that is the islamic reason for gods creation of universe
@@soheil527 I'm talking about real life, not fantasy
@@EricMalette carl sagan was a jew who was merely giving his caballist theory why universe was created.
Very fascinating. I'm glad you mentioned our moon. I read, long ago, that our large moon helps stabilize the Earth's axis. And that relative stability is what makes complex life forms possible by having a slower change to climate, which is needed for lifeforms to adapt and flourish.
In the same place, I read that Jupiter intercepts things from the outer system which would likely bombard us. Same with the moon.
Sounds like the Rare Earth hypothesis book!
some of what you are talking about is out of date - or rather, the idea that those things are as needed as they seem was massively overestimated in the past. Even given all of that, we get stuff capable of wiping out a lot of species on fairly regular timeframes.
Life dosent need the moon or lack of impacts
As evidence sugests life on earth could predate the impact of Theia
@@jesusramirezromo2037 maybe its a major factor for more complex life, though.
Great points. But since the Earth is 81 times the mass of the Moon, Earth should intercept a lot of things that, in its absence, would likely bombard the Moon:). Stay safe in the age of plague.
This man has the best voice on RUclips!!!
Dont forget Godier
@@stevencoardvenice yep! Great voice too
I concur, Id listen to this man read backsides of packages of food items.
@@stevencoardvenice more like GOATier
Sir john Michael godier
I'd say the earth - moon relationship is way more special than the solar system.
A planet that is subject to frequent major impacts would not be hospitable for the development of complex life.
The galactic nucleus and dense star clusters would be subject to frequent supernovae and radiation bursts.
I think the jury is still out on the importance of the moon/earth relationship.
@@QualityQman no moon no earth
Our planet is the only one where full solar eclispes happen in the entire solar system!
The greatest thoughts and discoveries of the Universe to ever unfold, presented to us in storyform through pristine narration, always. I just wish you would post more often.
I hope to do so in the new year when I get teaching relief here at Columbia!
@@CoolWorldsLabI will await that with great anticipation, Dr. Kipping. Keep up the great work!
Nice Carl Sagan quote there 😊 My absolute favorite quote.
"We are made of starstuff. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."
20:00 even "sun-like stars" = only 10% (according to Wikipedia "Solar analog"-page).
So 10 sunlike stars with 10% of those having Jupiter-sized (1% of all stars); only 25% have a Jupiter-like orbit (so 0.25%); with systems with a Jupiter but without a super-Earth/sub-Neptune being the left over of 1.2+/-0.5 (most favourable option is 70%), this results in a star system "like ours" (in terms of just looking at the Jupiter part (wayy too opimistic, I guess) is only 0.175%.
I guess we should be happy that there are a lot of stars.
One thing I've always struggled with is "How do you objectively define unusual?".
Is flipping coins and getting ten heads in a row unusual, compared to getting say
HTTTHTHHTT?
Is an egg falling on the floor and forming a perfect circle of debris unusual, compared to some other "messier" but specific distribution of debris?
Or in this case, are the presence of sub-Neptunes, a Jupiter analog, and near-circular orbits a valid - and unique - way to define unusual stellar systems?
If we were to randomly pick some other stellar system, and have good data on its planets and their orbits, would we stand a good chance of finding IT was unusual compared to other systems - but based on some other set of variables than the three above?
Could it be that inhabitants of MOST stellar systems would find theirs "unusual", but in ways very different than the ones we've noted?
Or to put it another way, whether we are unusual is closely tied to the question of "what variables determine fertile ground for life to develop?"
In that regard, I DO think circular orbits is a valid one to pick out. And presence of a Jupiter could be important as well. However I don't think we can say one way or the other regarding presence of sub-Neptunes.
Still, we don't know what OTHER variables might play important roles in opening the doors to life, even in our own system, and certainly not in others. In the landscape of possible combinations of variables, there might be MANY islands that are friendly to life -- some of which have virtually nothing in common with our own.
It’s never been that deep fam.
I get you and agree mostly, but your forgoing the only important part of the question. And that is comparatively, are we unusual compared to others. It doesn’t matter what we philosophically break down. We are the standard to measure our peers by.
Don’t even care to read the rest of your comment. You got to deep in the sauce and started making no sense
This video does mention that hot Jupiters are also unusual.
To answer some others maybe look at the reasons why some of the list of criteria are there. A large planet far out from the sun is considered important because it attracts meteorites towards it and away from the inner solar system where the habitable zone is. So another position for Jupiter maybe around a different type of star might do the same thing. That could lead to other consequences that affect the chance of life though. The data from Kepler is public so someone could search it with there own set of requirements.
We are only looking for the criteria we do because we have one data point where we can observe them for real. Until we find more examples of life any other criteria and the affect on life have to be modelled. Which is a much less sound basis to draw a conclusion.
No Prof. You and your team are the ones who are special. Thank you for another brilliant lesson..... 🙏
Whenever I think of alien life, I don't question wether it exists, but rather how far away it does...
Light years (that how I think of it)
That's a more useful way of considering it, I think.
Yup. The question then isn’t ‘Is there anyone out there?’ And more ‘Is anybody out there close enough to matter?’ If the nearest civilisation is on the other side of the galaxy - or even a whole other galaxy - then we are functionally alone since we will never be aware of each others existence.
you know.... there could be no one out there tho, next town could be seven cosmic horizons away
Its not a question of how far away they might be. But also how far away in time AND space they might be.
Almost all of the media I consume these days aside from reading is here on RUclips. I have a LOT of channel subscriptions, most of which I actively watch and participate in their respective communities and I have to say, this is the best content out there. Everything about it is just wonderful, my only complaint is that there's not more of it but such is the price of quality. I feel like you've picked up Carl Sagan's torch and ran with it and I'm really thankful to you for doing what you do.
“Somewhere in me is a curiosity sensor. I want to know what's over the next hill. You know, people can live longer without food than without information. Without information, you'd go crazy.” i love this channel 👾
As always, extremely on point and perfectly explained. Regarding "mediocrity", I totally agree that reasoning by means of pure philosophical principles is simply not as strong as observational data. In one case we are dealing with our internal workings about what we think it ought to be and in the later we are dealing with nature explaining us what it really is. There could be "others" like us or we could be alone, but in the end we would never know by pure idalistic reasoning, we need experiments and observations to start the conversation with nature. No amount of mediocrity, copernican and "large odds because large numbers" arguments will get us closer to the answer. We only have one data point and it tells us that Earth-like planets are possible outcomes of physical processes in the universe and with certainty (that's it for the moment).
In any case lets dig into the philosophy here for a moment: The principle of mediocrity is, IMO, very vague in its definition and we should stop claiming it makes for a humble view of our place in the Universe. Is it really humble to assume that everything in the cosmos must be similar to what humans are experience around them? This reminds me of the time when Huygens speculated about aliens on the moons of Jupiter and assumed they would be anthropomorphic, have sail ships and obviusly dress in consonance with 17th century european fashion. That is a very antropocentric (if not ethnocentric) and anti-copernican way in which the principle of mediocrity can be applied. I think the principle of mediocrity goes against the idea that "we are not the center of the Universe" instead of supporting it. I also think there are some statistical fallacies working behind the scenes: If we assume a uniform distribution of any variable with small random fluctuations then we would be right to conclude that a single value of that distribution is representative of the entirety of values, we would be right to use the mediocrity principle. But here, with Earth like planets, we are using it to conclude that the distribution should be quite uniform (which is the premise on which the mediocrity principle works on). If your conclusion is your premise then the entire reasoning lacks any relevance and is just a convoluted way of saying "I have faith in this statement". We don't know the actual distribution of Earth like planets, we don't know if their existence is highly dependent on stellar characteristics, systems architectures, etc... We could use the mediocrity principle if we assumed that the existence of Earth-like planets was largely independent of any other metrics, but that is not how scientific reasoning works. Earth and Earth-like planets are formed by mechanisms that need to have basic components to work. We don't know how many of those components are needed to actually make one of these planets nor how many different mechanism could give a an Earth-like planet nor what is their frequency of occurrence, but for sure there's a lot of possible processes and lots of possible outcomes, and if an historical principle of science has to be applied here is that science is a way of discovering how diverse the processes and the outcomes are in nature. Using the mediocrity principle for the serach of Earth-like planets, or extraterrestrial life has always been a very poor way of understanding copernicanism.
I think this is also interesting for another common argument; the large numbers - large odds fallacy. When you tell people that there are around 10^25 planets and large moons in the observable universe they tend to jump and exclaim "how could we be alone?". This is funny for many reasons but, IMO, in the context of what we are dealing with here it makes me think that when people hear "10^25 planets" they are thinking "10^25 Earths". They project themselves and our world to everything instantly because we in general don't have a sense of the diversity we could encounter. We just assume the unifrom distribution right away and get deceived by that. Almost no one thinks the other extreme: "there could be 10^25 worlds, each of those with completely different chemical processes, physical phenomena, geologic histories and atmospheric evolutions, like we found on our own Solar System (with almost each planet and Moon having their own identity and very little clustering in parameter space, with almost no correlation between properties between them)", but perhaps that should be the way of thinking. Perhaps the universe is largely devoid of life forms and Earth-like planets and the vast diversity of worlds we will discover in the next century could tell us a story where there are physical fenomena as outstanding and spectacular as life itself but that have nothing to do with life. perhaps we are too egocentric to realise. Or perhaps not. We will see what the instruments have to say.
Indeed! I think we should be open to the snowflake possibility, every world is different, every chemical system is slightly different and life is just one of the outcomes. But of course we should also be open to much more popular view that’s life is common too- both are largely consistent with current data.
@@CoolWorldsLab Totally agree. One of my points is that it is sad we don't tend to see the "snowflake hypothesis" as fascinating as the "extraterrestrials everywhere" one. Is more of a cultural topic than a scientific one, but is interesting to notice that bias towards one explanation only in science communication, books and movies. We will need a lot of time to incline the balance towards one possibility or the other since the high fidelity data will come later. Perhaps we will wait for centuries. I hope that, in the long run, humanity doesn't get bored with the search and people start seen SETI and exoplanetary research as a waste of time due to their past expectations. We must be patient and have our expectations in place.
The bias toward life as we know it and worlds as we know it is steep. It would not shock if Hoyle Dark Clouds like beings are more the norm, or so forth.
The real problem here is men & woman of the sciences, starting with the Conclusion of the scientific method, that the Universe & all life have NATURAL(laws) origins, even though there is zero scientific evidence. The categorization of all Life is in accordance to the belief that all Life today evolved from a common ancestor that nature made 1 or 2 billion years ago. Again. No evidence but this is now part of the sciences and accepted as fact.
Likewise with the Big Bang fact which shows that there was a beginning to the Universe & a highly likely UNNATURAL beginning to the Universe, most believe the Universe was NATURALLY made 13.7 billion years ago and evolved into the "expanding" universe we have today. Again, there is no evidence that energy, matter, time & space required for the Universe came into existence NATURALLY but you have physicists constantly making up new stories(hypothesis) to explain how the Universe was not .. UNNATURALLY made.
This bad science of state something is a fact with no evidence needs to stop.
You do not start with the Conclusion, with the scientific method.
WTH? If there is no data clearly showing a Natural explanation ... then you must at the least consider the "God Hypothesis."
A machine is a physical function .. that requires specific matter, energy, time & space .. in order to exist and to function.
All machines are unnaturally made, & made to function.
All machines require something with intelligence to make them, and to impart a function or purpose.
Nature & natural processes over any period of time can NEVER make a machine or make it function.
These are the facts( of Science) from the Machine Category ..... which identifies anything that is a machine.
There is no evidence that the Universe & all Life ... were NATURALLY made ... and there never will be.
The Universe & all Life ... are machines.
The Universe is a closed NATURAL system with finite energy & matter, and fixed laws of physics ... that is expanding in .... an open infinite UNNATURAL system that has its own UNNATURAL laws.
The Natural System has intelligent life so it is only reasonable and logical to say the UNNATURAL system has something with intelligence.
The Life in the NATURAL systems are specific physical functions according to the laws of Nature ... and must be UNNATURALLY made. by something with intelligence.
The Natural System itself is a specific physical function according to the Laws of Nature ... and must be UNNATURALLY made by something with intelligence.
Follow the science. All the data clearly shows the UNNATURAL origins of the Universe & Life. Stop the bad science of stating something is a fact of science, with zero evidence, and taking this bias into the scientific method explaining natural phenomena.
@@abelincoln8885 God hypothesis?
The problem with that is that, even if true, it doesn't help at all nor gives valuable info.
Let's say the universe was created by some kind of god (or gods). Now you just make a new problem: what created that god, capable of creating universes? I mean, that god must be incredibly complex, UNNATURALLY made, so if it was created by a higher being you just made a cycle of gods, explaining nothing.
If you say "well, that god wasn't created", then why that statement cannot be true for the universe? Compared to a god that can create a universe, the universe itself must be way simpler, more natural.
9:10 You know, you don't save any time or effort by saying "JWST" instead of "James Webb Space Telescope". They have the same number of syllables. And observations like this are the reason I'm single.
Haha well astronomers love their acronyms!
What a great teacher you are. Even if, because of my own intellectual limitations, I only get 10% of what you are explaining, my understanding of "where we are, how we got here and WHY" is enriched 100%. Thank you for reaching out to the masses and giving the wannabe nerds a place to call home!
Omg I love those closing arguments. Makes me feel unique, at least once.
The production value of these videos is on another level. Content is as well.
Thank you, Professor. This video was.. So enlightening and just mind-stimulatingly wonderful.
I don't know why, but your work gives me so much hope. The more we learn, the more astonishing it all is. Beautiful and informative video!
Small Correction:
An eccentricity greater than 1 does not correspond to a parabolic trajectory. An eccentricity greater than 1 corresponds to a hyperbolic trajectory. Parabolic trajectories are that special case of an eccentricity of exactly 1.
Eccentricity of Conic Sections
e = 0: Circle
0
Another amazing video. I am so grateful for a channel like this, always gets me thinking about things in a different way and questioning the 'normal' thoughts about the universe and our place in it. Truly the definition of real science, no bias and an ability to completely accept the evidence and its potential consequences, no matter how much it goes against the grain of typical theories
We ARE special because God created us. No other life in the universe will ever be found.
There is no evidence that Nature created Life ... but it is believed to be a fact of science.
However, the Function & Machine Categories prove the Universe & Life were UNNATURALLY made by something with immense intelligence & power.
So who is biased and not accepting the evidence?
Where will you be 100 years from now,
Heaven or Hell?
Jesus said, “no one can see the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are born again” (John 3:3)
The bible says, “the person who sins will die” (Ezekiel 18:20)
The bible says, “all liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire” (Revelation 21:8)
Are you a Christian? Do you love Jesus more than anyone or anything else? (Matthew 10:37-39)
Take this test from the bible to know if you are saved or lost.
1. Are you becoming more like Jesus every day? (Romans 8:29)
2. Would people say you walk in the light, or walk in the darkness? (1 John 1:6-7)
3. Do you admit and confess your sin? (1 John 1:8)
4. Are you obedient to God's Word? (1 John 2:3-5)
5. Does your life indicate you love God rather than the world? (1 John 2:15)
6. Is your life characterized by "doing what is right"? (1 John 2:29)
7. Have you stopped continually sinning? (1 John 3:9-10)
8. Do you “have the son”(living inside by His Holy Spirit) (1 John 5:11)
9. Do you demonstrate love for other Christians? (1 John 3:14)
10. Do you "walk the walk," versus just "talking the talk"? (1 John 3:18-19)
11. Do you maintain a clear conscience? (1 John 3:21)
12. Do you experience victory in your Christian walk? (1 John 5:4)
If you are able to truthfully answer "Yes" to these questions (or a majority of them, and are seeing progress on the others), then your life is bearing the fruit of true salvation. Jesus said that it is by our fruits that we are known as His disciples (Matthew 7:20). Fruitless branches-professing believers who do not display the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23) are cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:7).
Repent of your sins and ask God to give you the gifts of repentance and faith.
(Ephesians 2;8)
Cry out to God: “have mercy on me a sinner” (Luke 18:13)
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved” (Acts 16:31)
Jesus said, “you must be born again” (John 3:7)
@@pastorpeteonthestreet3112 How do you know no life will ever be found elsewhere? I could understand someone thinking that way a long time ago, but now we know there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies in the observable universe, with countless planets orbiting stars..
Everywhere we look we see the same chemistry, the same physics.. Earth is only one planet out of who knows how many, so no one can be certain whether there is life anywhere else or not. There may even be life on moons, there may be life that isn't even carbon based; we just have no idea at this point.
@@abelincoln8885 If you are so certain your claims are correct, then why haven't you published all your data and evidence? Why do we only see YT comments from you? Until your work is published in relevant journals, it can simply be dismissed, as it's just opinion.
I’m digging the outdoor lecture hall, Doc.
“Listen closely & you can hear that the universe is trying to tell us something profound” 😊😊
That democRATS are the scum of the earth
@@SuperYtc1 like it or not humanity and all life on earth IS special. It is unique within our solar system, and, according to all of our information, unique within our immediate solar community.
Happy to see you’ve posted a new video on the topic! Thanks, Professor! Excited to watch it.
Wow. One of the most fascinating astronomy videos I've ever watched. The next decade is going to be very exciting with the JWST and other advanced telescopes, hopefully we will get a better idea of the rate of habitable zone planets around sun like stars, and also red dwarfs since they are far more common. Lots of unanswered questions still about the potential for life, but it's so intriguing that it seems like our solar system is not a dime a dozen. Amazing stuff, we are privileged to be able to start to piece together such profound mysteries in our age.
David, given your field of specialism, I can’t imagine how exciting James Webb must be for you. Have you ever looked forward to anything as much? Because for me, I’m already foaming at the mouth with excitement!
No more delays or problems please - astronomers and astronomy fans all over the world have waited long enough for this to be launched.
Imagine walking in the woods and seeing this guy talking to a tripod quietly.
You never know where I could be…
It's probably his back yard. Haha.
Great video. An honest assessment of the uniqueness of our solar system. It's refreshingly honest compared to discussions where it's taken as a given that we can't be anything but normal.
it feels like christmas when you upload a video, and moreso when its a rare earth video. thanks for your pioneer work
Man, I absolutely love how you always manage to end your videos with a deeply profound and thought-provoking message.
One of my thoughts that keeps coming back to me: Earth is highly unusual. It does not have the starting core material that it would have collected in natural planetary formation. The planet that collided with us, resulting in our Moon formation, resulted in approximately 1.3 times the Earths inner core material than would be normal. Maybe it takes this injection of additional material, that keeps the geology, and magnetosphere active- long enough for Life to take root. The other planets in our own solar system, with their typical formation amount of core materials, have by this time solidified, losing their magnetosphere, and their atmosphere, resulting in worlds like Mars.
Maybe Mars is the typical planet model- its formative amount of interior material will never result in the world being geologically active and shielded 4.5 billion years later. the core will solidify, and the atmosphere surface water lost. Earth continues on with a strong magnetic field protecting it highlights our worlds uniqueness.
With this model, how likely are other worlds Out There likely to have any sort of Magnetosphere, any sort of retained atmosphere, after a typical 4.5 billion years for life to evolve?
Mars had a major collision too - that is why the northern half is miles lower than the southern. The collision was just smaller than Earth's so no moon.....
@@tommy-er6hh I would also ? that takes 4.5 billions for life to form! It could be much less depending on the size & type of solar system!
@@Gyalog44 It could be that elliptical orbits retard life's development and eccentric orbits speed up evolution.
These CoolWorlds videos are almost too good for RUclips. Should be a tv documentary series. Definitely the best
Sure, since you enjoy paying your Cable bill. Cool channels like coolworlds aloud me to cut the cord.
Simply amazing content and production. Thank you for making this available.
You are truly one of the best content providers on youtube, and your content, style, and person offer every form of appeal. Keep them coming!
One of my favorite channels and Another great video. Thanks for the hard work you are putting in on these. They really are enjoyable
Thank you I sincerely value these comments
2 things bring me joy.
1. My children
2. Notifications from RUclips to tell me CoolWorlds have posted a new video. Professor Kipping is amazing.
Simply amazing. Thank you professor Kipping
This was by far one of the most intriguing and oddly heartwarming videos I've ever seen on youtube.
This is great. Both informative and enjoyable. You may have covered this in another video, but I've heard that it was recently determined that the rarity of phosphorus in the universe places an unexpectedly large restriction on both the occurrence of life in the universe and the total "biological carrying capacity" of our galaxy. I'd love to get your thoughts on this.
Isaac Arthur has a video on the phosphorus problem on his channel
@@stevencoardvenice Yup! That was my introduction to the idea. :-)
Professor I don't know how you keep up with your work schedule and make new videos so often but I profoundly enjoy your views. I am a finance professor, your videos provide a little breathing air from the usual financial markets stuff. Lucky to be able to watch you from 8000 km away.
Fantastic and awe-inspiring work as usual! Bravo 👏
Considering just the sheer amount of stars in a single galaxy and assuming that only 1% of the stars share a solar system similar to ours, you still have an incredibly massive number. You could even take 1% of that number and you'd still have a massive amount solar systems. Take 1% of that number and you guessed it, still a massive amount of stars. To think our solar system and Earth's ability to sustain life is the only one in our galaxy let alone the universe is similar to believing without any shred of a doubt that you can win the Powerball several times in a row.
10:32 this seems like an odd data point to bring up because of the previously mentioned short observation window. If you pull from four years of data only planets
not only are these videos incredibly interesting, your voice soothes me and puts me to sleep and it’s ACTUALLY helping my severe sleep disorders
a minor point: you say the % of G star like our sun is 10%, but when I look at 250 closest stars, which show more red dwarfs stars than bigger collections, it is only about %5 of the closer stars which are G.
More over our Sun is solo, which is only about 25-30% of all G stars - do not know if that has an effect, but it makes our system more rare. And in addition, our Sun is a very calm star, many G and other stars have flares, we are not certain why our Sun is this way.
And I am sure you can name many other things that make our Solar System rare, you just did not have time for it.
It's not a very large sample size and most of those stars would be brighter and easier to detect than G-type dwarfs.
I've been recently been thinking that going back to my "Earth is quite unique" over "the number of similarities must be high" is the safer bet. Time is the other variable that I'm not sure anyone has good enough comprehension of.
Love these videos, the rational and well-argued points like these are as rare as our planet's features may be. Other channels basically serve a wish-fulfillment agenda, and try to reassure our anxiety of solitude by proposing a swarm of aliens lurking everywhere. Its refreshing to be treated as an adult.
Great video I agree, but this isn't a foregone conclusion that alien civilizations aren't within our galaxy (though IMHO they are probably relatively uncommon). There are rocky planets around the habitable zones of red dwarfs, which are far more common. It's a highly interesting result to learn our system may be unusual to some degree for G type stars, but that's all it is right now.
Yes to both, we simply know about intelligent life but we should keep an open mind to both possibilities, the little data we have is consistent with the unusual scenario
@@CoolWorldsLab hi Professor, sorry what do you mean when you say 'we simply know about intelligent life"?
I can't express how much I love you and your content. I don't get a chance to speak about this stuff with people I know, so this really scratches an itch. On another note, if I can humbly suggest a subject for a video, if you haven't done so already, I'd love to see a terraforming Mars, right up to adjusting gravity. I think it would complement your terraforming Venus vid.
Thanks.
Thanks for the kind words and the suggestion!
People have been obsessed for decades with the idea that we're not "special", despite having no evidence either way. It's good to see the discussion becoming evidence-based
Half the questions in this video starting with where the sub-neptune in our system is are answered by “it’s probably Jupiter’s fault in some way” with decent certainty.
I'm worried by our (humankind's) tendency and ability to destroy ourselves. In my opinion - we are an especially bad solution to the universe's need for self-awareness. :(
What wasn't mentioned (possibly outside the scope of this video) is that the criteria for planets that can support simple lifeforms is far less than those needed for complex lifeforms. And then there is the unknown criteria for intelligent lifeforms.
Given what we know so far, stating that it's a miracle that we exist at all isn't hyperbole.
Gosh. I also remember hearing somewhere that the time it took for 1 single cell organism to develop into multicellular life was something like Billions of years. Which I find odd. Like if all the conditions for life to develop are met. Then surely it should be less of a seremdipitous occurance that created multicellular life than is evidenced. It really seems like the universe is not designed for life haha. Also, what are your favourite exo- planets? Do we have enough information to determine characteristics in a meaningful way? and are we close to being able to increase our ability to discern exo planet characteristics?
Multicellular individuals might not be quite as serendipitous as you might think: if Wikipedia's to be believed, all eukaryotic kingdoms evolved it separately, with some evolving it multiple times. That this evolution isn't seen amongst prokaryotes(though some do exhibit multicellular behavior, all do so as multiple individuals) makes it reasonable to assume that something about being a eukaryote is a requirement; since all eukaryotes share a common progenitor, it would seem the critical event that created eukaryotes is what is rare or unlikely.
Damn. Probably one of the best videos I’ve seen on this channel. Keep it up!
Wow, that's a great video. I very much like the presenter. He seems extremely knowledgeable and serious. He isn't "giving the public what the public wants to have" - a million civilizations in our own galaxy - and instead he carefully presents the serious prospect that, yes, we might be alone in the Milky Way. Thank you so much for your serious, honest words!
Shouldn't overlook that the Earth is the solar system's most dense planet. Life perhaps, requires a certain concentration of metals to get started.
Existential crisis said hi
A steady, precise and clear discussion of the question of the title.
Good job. My highest recommendation.
Could life be present on Moons of Jupiter analogs with eccentric orbits and how could it adapt to the drastic changes in distance to it's Star?
Just staying curious here.
Love your work Professor Kipping.
You are an inspiration to many.
Prof. Kipping, you are very special to many of us, most intellects are not as calming as your voice and explanations.
That’s why I appreciate’ Living’ in this special, magical world 🌍👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿🥰🥰
It's no surprise that you live in one since you only CAN live in one.
@@ChinnuWoW not necessarily there are infinite universes with Infinite possibilities. I’m only conscious of this world reality that’s why “ I Appreciate “ living in this world reality. 🙏🏿🙏🏿🙏🏿😀👨🏿⚕️👨🏿⚕️👀
I like looking at the sky and thinking we are so little, our problems, my problems are too little for the whole universe
It is believed that the reason we don’t have a “Hot Jupiter” is because Saturn formed and pulled it back from it spiralling inwards towards the Sun. So to me Saturn will always be king 🙃
It's all just conjecture. We really have no idea.
@@dirremoire yeh to me if true, is why I’ll always love Saturn and why i have a Saturn tattoo 🙃
I'm fairly certain that *Rare Earth* is on the book shelf at home for Prof Kipping
I have it! I finds the arguments a little speculative to be honest, I prefer data!
@@CoolWorldsLab But for a book before the data was out, it certainly was ahead of it's time
I was watching the video and I literally had the same thought, that “the universe is trying to tell us something “ just before you said it! A very informative video.
Obviously still a lot to learn, but I’m becoming ever more supportive of the Rare Earth hypothesis as a solution to the Fermi Paradox.
When i come to this channel my anxiety goes away and mind opens up. Thank you Professor.
This video is so damn good that the only flaw I can find is the jarringly abrupt disappearing star light at 18:38 . And even this is not directly his fault ! Bravo !
Hey man, I'm in college for engineering right now, but I'm seriously considering going into astronomy and physics instead. I'm hoping you could provide some insight into the field. What is the work in astronomy like? What are the kind of jobs astronomers hold? What has your career been like? Thanks for the help!
Professor Kipping is the best on RUclips. There's a few other really good channels out there but Cool Worlds is the best.
This is quickly becoming one of my favourite channels. Another thought provoking video.
Good work. I feel like there are a lot of variables that get overlooked in the idea that Earth and our solar system are typically from the activity of red dwarves to the goldilocks zone between having plate tectonics and a core active enough to protect the planet from it's star but not so active that a supervolcano resets civilization back to the stone age every time it tries to get started.
The questions you asked in the introduction were exactly what I was asking in my head one after another lol
2:18 , the professor throwing a middlefinger at the audience 😂
Love this. So beautifully done with a beautiful and powerful message!
First video I’ve watched on your channel and I gotta say. WONDERFUL WORK.
It’s honestly cool and philosophical in a way that the more we get out there in the universe, we find out more about ourselves and our existence than we ever could simply staying here.
Indeed we are alone. Carl Sagon said "What a waste of space if we are alone. But opposite to his beliefs, it took all this space to create us
I disagree with Sagan there, I don’t think lifeless systems are “a waste of space”
Of course the Solar System is special. It is the only system that has humans in it, and that in itself is enough. Glory to humanity.
i find it beautiful that you shoot these videos out in nature
Your narration is soothing and quality of the video is exceptional. Instantly subscribed to your channel. Kind request to please post a video describing the "Axis of evil" problem in cosmology.
It is a privilege to listen to you teach sir.
I wish it was possible to take an actual class with Professor Kipping. I always feel like I have learned much after watching one of his videos. I also find his tone to be calming and very easy to listen to. I could sit through hours and hours of his lectors. I guess in a way I have, I have lost count of how many of his videos I have watched.
Huge thank you for putting up these videos up, each one is a joy to watch. Please keep up the amazing work you're doing!
Thank you so much,
Cool worlds! Very, very cool!
Great video, Prof 👍🏻 Thanks 🙏🏻
8:31 - Unless I'm mistaken, in that chart, you fail to take into account the grey boxes, which show that, for example, there are likely to be far more planets of Earth's size at the same distance as Earth's orbit than "sub-Neptunes" or "super-Earths". If correct, this kind of defeats the whole purpose of your video. It seems that we just have a hard time detecting planets that are smaller and have larger orbits (which is something you mentioned yourself in this very video). Also, even if we're "special", that doesn't mean that most of the rest are similar. There can be an immense variety of "special" solar systems, depending on what we're looking for. For example, if we're focusing on a solar system with a hot Jupiter-like planet, and we just lump all solar systems together that don't have a hot Jupiter-like planet, then that solar system would be "special" and ours would just be among the rest. That isn't really the case, because we can probably find ways in which each solar system is "special" in its own way. I agree that the Earth with life is not "common" among planets, but I take issue with some of the other inferences you make in this video.
New Cool Worlds vid on a Friday eve. What a better way to call it a week?
James Webb soon! So excited!!!
We're all VERY fortunate to live on such a beautiful planet. That much we can be sure of, and that much we can't let ourselves forget.
The opening credits/title sequence for Cool Worlds Lab where those four objects circle an unseen mass has now taken on for me the same level of emotional anticipation and wonder as the opening credits for logos of MGM Lion's roaring, the cute lamp for PIXAR, 20th Century Fox and it's searchlights with brass heavy orchestra, and of course Universal Pictures with Earth spinning at sunrise. Just magic and meaning.
What thought provoking ending. I love when the audience is left with a profound question to ponder. Thanks for the great presentation!
Any time #CoolWorlds uploads is good day. Eloquently told every time
Thank you for watching!