FAQs (keep ‘em coming!): 1. "We’re here, so that proves/implies intelligences are common", or "sets a lower bound on lambda_B (the birth rate)". Sadly not! We only observe ourselves because we exist, it couldn’t be any other way. This is a product of the weak anthropic principle. For example, you might naively conclude that 1/lambda_B ~ 4 billion years, since thats how long it took on Earth to get to us. But Brandon Carter’s paper (arxiv.org/abs/0711.1985) exemplifies why this thinking is wrong with an analogy of hard locks. If a lock takes 100 years to pick, on average, but only 10 minutes have passed by thus far, one might guess no-one could have possibly succeeded. But, in fact, given enough independent lock pickers, someone will luckily pick the lock very quickly. That person would then be in error to conclude their lock pick time was typical. The basic issue is you just can’t use “us” as a data point, because we *are* the observers and thus “us” is not a fair, representative sample from the distribution. I've also written about this extensively before, see arxiv.org/abs/2005.09008 and ruclips.net/video/iLbbpRYRW5Y/видео.html 2. "You said the flasks are all nearly similar, but planets could be very different from one another!" True, good point. I somewhat regret emphasizing the similarity between the flasks, I used that analogy to make things easy to follow but it adds a confusion with deeper thought. In fact, the flasks could be wildly different and the conclusion is the same. Let’s make some boiling, some acidic, some salty, etc. In doing so, we make some choices as to how to diversify them. The thing is, it’s very unlikely that the choices we make here will just so happen to split the sample 50:50 between dissolving and not dissolving. Because remember we made those choices in the absence of any information about compound X, so why should they happen to divide the sample evenly like this? Another way of thinking about it is that there is some logistic function which acts like a switch between dissolving and not dissolving, with the x-axis being the conditions of each flask. The neck of this logistic, the switch point, occurs at some unknown position, A. To get a 50:50 split, the conditions would have to saddle the neck of the logistic curve event on each side, but the logistic extends very far in both directions, so it’s pretty unlikely we’d happen to choose a set of flasks that land 50:50 either side of the unknown switch point A. Hopefully this extra analogy helps, but at the end of the day it might be helpful to look Jaynes’ paper (ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4082152)
I agree with the first point. The second is a very simplistic analysis. Solubility is not a binary function. Also the solubility in the mixture is not a single variable linear function. It is a multivariable nonlinear function. So while 50-50 is not likely, neither are 100-0 or 0-100. While has-life may seem binary, there is a huge range from barely supporting single cell life to comfortable supporting a space faring civilization. So, properly analyzed, the analogy is reasonable.
Isn't there a paradox wherein the more technologically advanced we become, the more easily we might extinct ourselves by accidents and the complications of such events? If that would hold true in a grander scale, then the universe being mostly empty would actually make sense - that life could be common enough, but that survival (or more to the point, civilizations surviving themselves) would be extremely rare.
Absolutely compelling and a fresh take on the Fermi Paradox that's going to give me pondering material for a good long while. For anyone interested in the possibilities of other life in the universe, this is a gem. And also, exomoons! We want exomoons!
I'd like to mention that it's really nice that you do not use background music. It helps me to concentrate on what you say and your voice is so soothing too.
He does use background music in some videos but subtly and it's very effective. Here it works best without it because it's a discussion of their latest paper.
I'm so tired of content creators who either don't have trust on their own material and have to fill with music- or consider their audience as infantiles who need constant noise. Thank you for not using empty filling music
It’s an excellent observation with which I agree. I also appreciate how the visuals actually have _some_ connection with what is being said on the screen, as opposed to just being random stock videos of stars, nebulae, galaxies, and anything else that might look “astronomical.”
It was meant to simply get the proverbial ball rolling on merely *thinking* about how many variables there are to consider in this search. The beginnings of life on our *own* planet are still veiled in mystery, though we've made some headway. If we can't even define how many miraculous coincindences needed to occur here on the world we are most familiar with, how likely are we to figure it out for a world on the other side of the galaxy!?🤯😵
I think it was only ment as a thought experiment A what if scenario if you will Now I have no idea what to say or think about this But to me that is what I would take from it Q fun way of thinking about the galaxy and the possibility of life elsewhere And as always a great video from a great Channel 👍 Just saying 🇳🇴
Not actually. Original big bang theory clearly indicates there is life put there certainly... statistically this theory assu,es anything os part of only one function therefore mathe,aghically its certain there is lofe put there tough todays researchers do not use math/statistics analysis prorocols by simplifying comples logics... so thats wjy they assume life is only on visible spectrum :P😂😢😮😅😊
The fact that we took 4 billion (with 1 Billion years left before life dies out entirely) years to evolve, 1/3 the age of Universe is a serious issue. Prokaryotes evolve very quickly; however, eukaryotes unambiguously evolved 1.6 bya, multicellular life evolved 0.6 bya, so combination evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular life, & intelligence is a great filter. We're lucky to be here.
One thing to consider is life may take much longer, or barely any time at all to get where we are. Arguably, life never needed to take the leap to eukaryotic multicellular organisms. They were trucking on for 3 billion years without any issues. But a catalyst eventually made that happen. Be it from Arobic organisms surviving the great oxygenation events. To an early eukaryotic cell engulfing a bacteria and utilizing it as an ADP factory instead of a meal (mitochondria). And then when multicellular life took over it was FAST. But the evolutionary advantage of intelligence didn't take over. There very well could be a scenario where shortly after the earths oceans formed eukaryotic organisms took over and multicellular life was on the scene 2 billion years ago. And then there would be a reason that a sentient species popped up in 200 million years vs 500-600 million years like it did here. Etc. There is no reason that intelligent organisms couldn't have arrived during the jurassic for example. Plenty of time to develop intelligence during that period. So there could have been organisms walking on the moon 1.5 billion years ago. And the inverse of that is true. Life could have just stayed a prokaryotic sludge to this day.
One would also have to take into account that on a large scale, the Earth was basically destroyed a handful of times at the very least, so Life kind of had to start from scratch. How many times are cataclysmic events happening on other worlds that COULD support life?
I don't think it is when you consider not just the age of the universe, but the size of it. Given the estimates of the number of planets in the universe, if even 1 in a billion had ever met conditions potentially conducive to the development of life, there would be trillions of planets where life could have developed. If we're working under the assumption that single-celled life may develop and evolve relatively easily when such conditions are met and more complex life merely requires billions of years to develop afterward, complex life would likely have developed billions of times. Then why don't we see it? My guess is for the same reasons (the vastness of time and space) that it is likely life did not only occur here on Earth. What are the chances that intelligent life capable of discovering other intelligent life exists at precisely the point in time and in close enough proximity to discover one another? We have a hazy understanding of our own history going back just a few thousand years and it's only in the past hundred years that we've developed the technology to potentially discover other intelligent life beyond our planet. That's less than the blink of an eye when considering the time we believe is required for intelligent life to develop from single-celled organisms. A literal "blink and you missed it!", but with the additional condition that you have to have also been within range to see it! And what is that range? 93 billion light years? You'd have a better chance of discovering a fly that sneezed on pluto 3 million years ago.
E.T. Jaynes thought experiment is the perfect embodiment of the quote "Once is never, twice is always." Unfortunately, we are stuck on the once is never part of it, both for stars with life in the universe, and in regard to civilization developing on a world filled with life.
Ye, interestingly. Jaynes actually gives a slightly abbreviated version of that, that once is always, zero is never. The reason he said that though was because the observer, in his case of chemical flasks, is a separate entity. In contrast, in astrobiology, we have one known form of life, but it's us. So we can't really include it as a fair datum because we're only here because we're here! i.e. the weak anthropic principle. What you really need is at least one data point disconnected from our causal existence, such as life on Proxima or something.
Unfortunately, or fortunately? I like this result a lot more than the inverse. Let's take over the galaxy ourselves, then.¹ ✊ The dread *_Imperium of Humankind_* shall be the terror of the cosmos! _(¹: ...and let's _*_not_*_ get paved over by a star-empire that has no concept of empathy or mercy because they evolved in entirely different circumstances with entirely different biology)_
@@CoolWorldsLabremember, there may be another exception here. For all it's sins, the Drake Equation does ask what percentage of stars / planets provide the conditions for intelligent life to evolve. If that's only 1 star in 1 billion or 1 planet in X (X being the number of planets in the Milky Way), we may still have a galaxy at population capacity. Even if that was 5 or 10 per X, we could still be at capacity without knowing. Your assumption we may be early on the curve or even the first on the curve could indeed be incorrect quite easily with incorrect assumptions. Just a thought. Love your work by the way, can't wait to see the results from your JWST time! ❤
@@pikotech1 That's true, though one can kind of argue the same fine tuning argument against it again. Namely that if it is very unlikely, why would it only be so unlikely that you still get some civilizations then none at all. Of course obviously there is a chance we are in that range, and that would be some what interesting. But there is probably a pretty good chance that it is all or nothing as such. Even more so as even one civ could as they noted colonize the entire galaxy and fix the low habitability issue while doing so.
I just want to express my most heartfelt gratitude to you for NOT using hyperbolic video titles. It was one of the reasons I first started to watch your channel.
This is a compelling paper - there are a couple of things I find problematic, you address some of these which can mitigate the 0% conclusion, and I am glad you addressed them: 1). As I understand, the formula supposes uniform galaxies across the universe, but we know they vary in both size and shape. Some may have a lot of life, some close to nothing 2). The theory supposes technologically advanced civilizations, but we might be the only ones who’ve gotten this far (though I find that hard to believe). There might be other forms of life we are unaware of, as you said. 3). The signatures we are looking for may be the wrong type. If aliens truly are out there, what are the chances they would be using radio waves? 4). We might be at the very beginning of the curve; earth is 4.5 billion years old. What if take-off on the curve is in another 500 million years?
Been waiting for this update from Cool Worlds for several years. Probes the limits of academic literature relevant to the Fermi paradox and the question of aliens all the while steeping in the ever deeper wonders and mysteries of the universe - Cool Worlds doing what Cool Worlds does best.
The growing evidence for some sort of semi derelict biological drones from a civilisation possibly preceding us on this planet does make the position of many scientists be questioned. How many of them were "in the loop" and denied us the knowledge. I find the kardashev scale to be extremely inadequate. Who says that a very evolved civilisation is high in numbers. Quite the opposite is proven by our dropping birth numbers
RUclips is either teeming with intelligent scientific channels or there are barely any. Cool Words is the shining beacon on an otherwise desolate video sharing platform!
There are some good ones, Dr. Becky, Anton Petrov and Fraser Cain are all great for astronomy stuff. Dr. Kipping had a great interview about Exomoons on Fraser Cain's channel: ruclips.net/video/umiMtQU3bMU/видео.html - BTW: one thing you can do is, if you see stuff that's obviously clickbait b.s. you can actually block the channel from your recommendations (just click the 3 vertical dots on the rec to get a menu and you should be able to block from there). Once you clear out a lot of the bogus channels you'll only get good stuff (problem is you need to already know a lot about science to know what's 'good' or not, so not helpful for people who are just getting into it)
@takanara7 I found all these people, including Prof. Kipping, as well before my whole UAP experience in 2022. These people, except for 1 person. I also got into carpet cleaning. I discovered that the guy I like to watch from Poland; his machines give off a very specific level, a soothing sound. It actually appears to be a very good sound for soothing the mind. Who knew I would like watching people clean dirty rugs? 😂 I also am not a conspiracy type of person. Never was. I still don't do that after February 2022. I don't do conspiracy as it's too much work & wasted time, to worry & think about things that way. Truth & facts are always easier to remember. I have always been that way. I am not creative enough to dream up my UAP. It's sound/waves.
The problem is that people think of the Drake equation as an actual attempt at prediction when it was just meant to organize a meeting agenda to discuss SETI.
I have just discovered your channel via a comment on another video, one of Carl Sagan’s talks and have subscribed and look forward to watching your previous and future content. I have been fascinated by all things to do with space like many people since an early age and it’s great that there are many pushing the boundaries to help others understand more and more. Thank you for sharing this excellent video with everyone. Best wishes to you and your team and your families from England
I do think there is one major problem with this though is that while you have a 'death' term a more accurate term would be 'invisible' - in other words when we would no longer be able to detect a civilization with our existing telescope technology. One reason for that could be death, another reason would just be a switch to wideband radio communication, as well as more use of cables, etc. Like, even though we use way more communication tech today then in the 1960s the amount of 'radio light' we give off from more modern technology is probably a lot lower. And TBH I don't really think that if there was another planet with earth-like technology, we wouldn't see it. All the techno signature stuff is based on the idea of civilizations way more advanced then ours (i.e. dyson spheres, etc) But we don't actually know if there will ever be a dyson sphere around the sun, for example. Honestly at this point, it doesn't seem like we would be able to detect a planet with earth level technology with our current "observation power" (other then, ironically, chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere - which we are phasing out anyway!)
Instead we've pushed increasing amounts of energy over the entire light spectrum instead. Think all those mobile phones, the starlink network, wifi and so on and so forth. Total wireless communication tech usage has been increasing. And for the obvious reason really that it is convenient to exchange information. So Earth in some ways is actually only shifting the issue around by becoming brighter in more areas. The only obvious resolution to me for this issue would probably have to be more in the signals becoming increasingly narrowband, so one no longer wastes energy emitting in every direction. Which I suppose is something that might happen eventually, though you'd need to have a really tight system to really go dark like that. Still another problem will occur soon enough to then settle the matter in another way. Which is that some time this century if all goes well, we will be able to detect life on other worlds across increasingly large distances of this galaxy via telescopes instead. We'd be able to detect any unusual alterations in planet atmospheres at that point as well. Which I'm sure you realize will make an argument based on non-visible communication kind of irrelevant. You'd be able to just see them after all. Admittedly we don't 'quite' have those telescopes yet. But any one more advanced then us surely would, so they could already see us. Which leads to the Fermi Paradox problem, where are they? Why aren't they already here to view this system in more detail up close? Yes, one could create some explanations for it. But galactic colonization or even partial colonization would certainly cause... substantial tension with the idea of only being able to find other civilizations via communication as well. Still despite that reasoning... Well the most certain way is just to observe how things really are. So till we get those future mega telescopes, we won't know for sure.
If I remember correctly, we can't even detect earth like planets (same size, same distance to star) usually. We can detect an earth in mercury's orbit or a jupiter in earth's orbit on an alien system, but that's it. So that we don't see them, really so far doesn't have a huge Baysian meaning. So far, we can only really analyze one system, where we know that one planet created life as early as possible (and can't yet completely disclose that it might have happened at two other planets in the system, too, and maybe even on some moons, as well), but took a long time to develop an advanced civilisation and only for a short time so far. So, if any, that would support the probability closer to 1 than closer to 0. Once we have more observational power and we've seen maybe 3 or 4 star systems without any life (and can be sure about it), then it's time to shift to 0.
@@janekschleicher9661 What Beyesian info we have on life developing Earth supports more the idea that life on Earth developed quickly. This is due to Earth habitability period starting to come to an end. With in the next half a billion years or so complex life and thus us, should no longer be possible to develop/exist on this planet. At least not with out technology. (The reason for this is due to the Sun getting hotter over time, and I think water loss effects) In any case this means that we reached an advanced civ on this planet just before this world became uninhabitable. Which is a some what unlikely event. In timed events making it just in time always feels a bit unusual. This also brings some what in question life starting early here. As apparently life needed the entire period of habitability to achieve us. A point one could turn around and say, if life hadn't started as soon as possible, we wouldn't be possible. As for why 1 isn't really supported, it's because we don't find the remains one would expect from 1. Starting with the question by Fermi, where are they? Not as in, out there in space, but as in, why haven't they already crossed the gulf between stars and arrived here then? Why aren't we an advanced civ under the supervision of older alien civs? But also one could ask, why don't we see colossal mega engineering around other stars then? Swarms of large space facilities that influence the light output we see from a star. Given time we would after all build up our own star system as much as possible. Just as we would cross the gulf between stars and start doing that in other star systems as well. Of course one can create potential explanations. But they tend to be a bit adhoc, as it is hard to explain why it would apply to all civilizations with out exception. And so the galaxy with no obvious signal of alien civilization is more an indicator of 0. No major build ups, no expansions in to our Solar System, everything just looks lifeless and natural to the scales we can observe. Still, I do agree we lack data. This is far from an absolute statement, and more one that perhaps we've been a bit to optimistic on running in to alien civilizations quickly.
@@Quickshot0 Well if we were to assume that galactic colonization could prevent new life and civilizations from forming; that would infer that any civilization coming into existence would occur before anyone finished galactic colonization. If odds are you only on average get 10 space faring civilizations produced before the galaxy gets colonized. Then if you exist, and the galaxy isn't colonized, then you are among the 10. If the number happens to be 20, you are among the 20. If the number is five, you are among the five. If the number is one, you are it. I think an interesting set of questions is if we were first, second, or third, how long would it takes us to see someone else? Keep in mind, light lag is quite the thing. We are 26,000 lightyears away from the center of the milky way. How far head is first place from second place technologically?
You are a boon to humanity. Thank you for seeking to ground a conversation widely polluted by people who are happy to say anything that gets them attention.
Thank you for such great content. I love that you go beyond the typical pop-sci slop and actually get into the math/statistics behind your and others’ work-which I really love learning about. Also, as this video shows, I appreciate your realistic view of the universe-such as the true difficulties of interstellar travel and the likely rareness of other Earths and intelligent life. I can’t wait to become a member of the Cool Worlds Lab when I start my new job after graduating later this summer. Keep up the awesome work.
This is such a wonderful video, the occupied fraction vs birth-death ratio plot really blew my mind because it showed me how in principle Jayne's distribution can be arrived at, and why its either (almost) all or (almost) nothing. I also love the optimism at the very end, the idea that life could be all around us but we just don't know how to look for it (yet). Keep inspiring us!!
One thing that has always struck me is, we are looking, but we have only been looking for maybe a few hundred years in the optical, maybe 100 years using radio telescopes. This is out of 13. Billion years. Aliens would have to be relatively close, technologically advanced and be existing at roughly the same time to have overlap with ours. It’s that overlap I think will be the most important factor.
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
Of course the light from different stars is arriving at us from different time periods. It is true that of each star we have witnessed 100 years of it's life max, so what you've said is true from star to star, but we do have a wider vantage on general conditions of the galaxy at different points in time for up to a million years (the time it takes for starlight from the other side of the galaxy to reach us). Much like we can tell the biology of a Triassic by looking at the right rock layer, if there was a 100,000 year civilization that occurred about 300,000 years ago, we might see it. But, whilst not a mere 100 years of view, 1 million years is very short time compared to 10 billion years lets say. In fact it is only 0.01% of it!
@@djsarg7451No we are not, we're just not technically advanced enough to find life like ours. There's life on this planet that can live without oxygen, it may be small but it's here. There's billions, probably trillions of galaxies out there each with maybe a billion stars with multiple planets around them & you don't think at least one of those planets has life on it. That's frankly delusional.
@@markholdon8525 You are in Si-Fi land not the real world of knowledge. We have ruled out other galaxies. We have not found another galaxy that can support life. In the Milkway, we can not find one star that will support life. We now know that life must be carbon-based. Only carbon has the complexity for life. So no billion stars does not change Facts.
Having been a sceptic and having seen jack shit for 30 years of unhealthy obsession in Astronomy and being slapped by two experiences that defy all logic, I find your comment showing you being behind the curve my friend. We are not supposed to say that UAP are nothing to worry about.
@@Roguescienceguy There's no curve when it comes to aliens unless you're talking scientifically, which you clearly aren't. Maybe you should stick to actual science instead of questionable experiences.
@@justbaqirr personally I am still on the fence whether they are extraterrestrial or not, but these things are here and they indeed show signs of intelligent manipulation. I mean, stopping mid flight, doing some zigzag-motion and then flying on is definitely weird. Might be some skunkworks though. Btw, quite a number of European scientists are seriously investigating the phenomenon now.
Here is the deal... UAP ARE 100% REAL! ANYONE who believes otherwise is the one NOT living in reality. All mainstream scientists saying "there is no evidence" are either A) Liars or B) Willfully ignoring the tons of evidence, radar, video, and people's personal accounts of such things. The deal is mainstream academia is has been TOTALLY CO-OPTED by the CIA(current master)/OSS/US GOV since the Manhatten project. Those guys (who infact went on to teach a majority of high level scientists afterwards) had security clearances, knew they were real, and were told to deny the reality of them, and to ostrascize ANYONE in their fields who stepped outside that narrative. So these people... who most looked up to in their field, and respected... did their masters bidding, and attacked anyone in science who dared even question the truth of them. Then because we are social creatures others joined and out of fear never looked into it themselves out of fear of being labeled an "other". THIS is the reality of how mainstream academia/science has helped perpetuate the psyop, and cover up. They have self policed themselves willingly into a falsehood. THAT IS THE ACTUAL TRUTH! The other truth is shown in the language of those who actually know some truths about these things. They DO NOT say "ET", bit they say NHI.... because they do not believe they are from another planet out there... maybe some are. the technology is absolutely way beyond our own. The beings in them control them in way that is almost biological... but reality is much stranger than fiction... there is a very "woo" element to these things... that you HAVE to come to grips with to try and understand. Like the reality of remote viewing... which is 100% real.. I have done it myself. Anyone who is open enough to the reality of them... can see one... but I would absolutely not advise calling one in.. because there is no telling with what you are messing with.
Personally I find this formulation of the problem far more compelling for the existance of "life", than for the prevalence of "technological civilizations". The mere existance of life must indeed be either everywhere or almost nowhere as it is fundamentally a question of the likelihood of chemistry turning into a system of self-replication (similar to the water in the glass flasks analogy and I lean heavily towards "everywhere") However, when it comes to technological civilizations I have always thought the brief "phase transition" to a state where the entire galaxy is covered is flawed. I can imagine several factors that could either slow the expansion or halt it at a value substantially lower than 100%, challenging that assumption and create large regions with minimally visible tech civilizatiions including: Ideology, the usefulness of planets with life for science, Internal and external conflict and disagreements between civilizations, a reasonably high probability of death or decline for civs etc. Additionally, even if the curve does apply, the relative youth of the universe compared to its lifespan increases the liklihood we are in the ascending part of the curve, especially if the rate of civilizational expansion is somewhat slower than some currently beleive.
I think the "almost nowhere" for the technological level of intelligent life, because it almost didn't happen on earth. Earth has had life for like 4 billion years, but we only have about 800 million years before the oceans boil off. In fact the earth was much more hospitable to life 100 million years ago with much higher oxygen concentrations, so huge animals could live then that couldn't live today. We also know that longer-lived stars like red dwarfs would likely blow the atmospheres off planets close enough to have life, and huge bright stars don't last very long - so really even with a sunlike star the odds of developing intelligent life would be low. (but, maybe in the future you could have planets around white dwarfs that would last for a very, very long time)
In your thinking how much the factors you mentioned (ideology, usefulness, etc.*) would affect the phase transition speed? 10x? 100x? Still not enough I think**. Also, part of your rationale is covered by the birth/death ratio. My intuition is that to make a dent in the fine tuning argument by "widening" the "phase transition" time, we should show that the suggested reasons have a non-linear impact, i.e. they don't just put a coefficient in front of the equation. For example, the larger the perimeter of the empire, the more potentially useful planets are in your reach, so this actually works against your argument. Assume empire radius r. Number of cool planets to explore grows with ~r^2. Even if on average, cool planets are only 10%, this is a constant coefficient in front of a quadratic equation. Internal conflicts would indeed grow with the volume of your empire ~r^3, which might be useful to focus on. Meeting other civs would probably be related to the perimeter of your empire r^2, not its volume. Etc. etc.*** I agree we're in the ascending part of the curve, but that doesn't tell us much. We might be the first, or to be more precise the only one currently spacefaring/doing the expanding. I think this is what the fine tuning argument tells us. * "disagreements with other civs" works against your argument ** remember the simulations were done with current technology in mind, I think we can improve our engines considerably up to a fraction of c. *** another cool idea: I read "Accelerando" lately and there, the constraint on civilization growth was network bandwidth/latency, which caused members of a civilization to prefer being near each other, resulting in matrioshka-brain civilizations. Bandwidth would be subject to inverse square law, so dampens with 1/r^2
@@kosairox Wouldn't phase transition be slowed depending on the percentage of stars with habitable planets? (Or a planet useable for a self-replicating probe to visit and create more of itself) This is basically an exponential growth curve, right? The closer the useful systems are, the quicker the probe gets there, and the quicker more probes are made, etc, etc. Would this not be able to slow the transition to a more believable level? Like, say the phase transition takes 1 billion years instead of less than 10 million years, and with the universe being 13.6 billion years old, then it wouldnt be too improbable to currently be in that transition - right?
@@extragoogleaccount6061 One can come up with many reasons why the phase transition would be slower. If we reduce the number of habitable planets by a factor of 100, would that increase the galactic conquest time from 10 million years 100-fold to 1 billion yeras? I don't think so. For the sake of argument, if you're a self-replacting probe you have less habitable planets to choose as your next "destination", but they're just homogenuously as distant from you. Say, instead of 1000 planets which are 10 ly from you in random directions, you have 10 planets which are 10 ly from you in random directions. I think volume-wise, it doesn't make much difference then. In fact, less planets means less paths to choose from means the expansion (volume-wise) would be faster. It also means you need to produce less probes, though I think the time required to produce probes doesn't matter anyways because it's much shorter (years?) compared to travel time. The "benefit" of having less habitable planets is that a civ is harder to detect, but if we assume that, say, within 10 ly it's practically guaranteed that a detection is successful, it doesn't make much difference. I think we need to consider average distance between habitable planets and distance of detecting a civilization. If distance between habitable planets is smaller than distance of detection, then it is as I said. Otherwise, if distance between habitalbe planets is greater than distance of detection, your argument could work. Though this argument could be applied to bolster the "aliens are everywhere we're just not listening hard enough" scenario just as well, not only to attack the phase transition fine tuning argument. To explore this further one could come up with a maths model, maybe a python simulation, and test for what parameter values would the number of habitable planets benefit or harm the hypothesis? Then compare with real-life detection range estimates and real-life habitability estimates.
If only more teacher has that next level fascination/dedication to the true pursuit of science. The calculations must describe the world/universe as closely as possible to the field data. BRAVO!
Nice. Nice to witness science advancing in front of my eyes and being able to understand a small fraction of it. Your reworking of the Drake equation is pretty cool stuff. I don't get bummed-out over the very low probabilities of there being actual alien life forms out there eventhough I'm a big sci-fi fan. I like the scientific approach and not to see with only our emotions. I actually now lean a little more towards there being other life out there but I think of the density of it in the infinity of the universe would leave a lot of distance between occurrences.
While our observations can clearly rule out every planet having a technological civilization, it's still entirely possible that every suitable planet has life. The Earth could very well be representative of this; it has had life for almost its entire history, while only having a civilization for a very brief moment. In other words, maybe life is extremely common, and civilizations do try to emerge very frequently, but they are so short-lived that no one ever lives long enough on astronomical timescales.
While that's possible we just have no idea what the likelihood of any life forming on a planet is. It can't be "that high" because we've seen a ton of planets that are very definitely not suitable for life and one (maybe a few if you count the moons with water oceans) that could possibly support life.
There's a fallacy in this assumption. At least if we're talking about higher life forms. It's not enough for Earth to just be in the goldielocks zone of our solar system. There are factors like our Sun being the perfect size (there is no goldielocks zone around a red dwarf, for example, despite how much sci-fi bros would like it to be. Tidal locking is no joke), us having a ginormous moon and Jupiter to act as a cosmic vacuum cleaner for the inner solar system. There are many more factors which would take too long to list them all here, but let's just say we hit a Royal Flush. Are there going to be other planets out there in the Universe that also hit a Royal Flush? Most certainly. But it's not very common and the chances that it happened in our cosmic neighborhood are slim, to say the least. So in that sense we're very much alone out there and we won't be communicating with other intelligent life in the Universe as in Star Trek. That's a pipe dream.
@@veganbutcherhackepeter Well, people hit Royal Flushes every day of the week in Vegas, and elsewhere. Not me, at least not yet, but somebody has and will.
I'm surprised how we expect E.T.s to be just enormously scaled up version of our tech, when in fact what we already do is shrinking out tech in size, not making it larger. Shrinking dye sizes, quantum computations, increasing power efficiency, DNA engineering. All that means E.T.s probably operate on the scale level of atoms and relying on quantum effects for communication, not at the level of stars, Dyson spheres and communication in radiowaves.
The Drake equation was a conversation starter. We owe a lot to Frank Drake for getting us started down the path of thinking about this problem in a more cleared-headed way.
Hmm, I disagree. I think it was a huge diversion. At the end, it had no predictive value. It sounds like math. It sounds like science. But it's actually not.
@@christopherdaffron8115 He split the atom by accident and didn’t even know it for 5 years until someone else told him. He was just experimenting. That’s what scientists do. Others started the conversation. Should we not have conversations because something bad might happen? I can’t see any purpose to what you wrote.
@@ScentlessSun Here is the point. Read Carefully! Drake's equation has taken on more purpose than Drake had intended. The Fermi Paradox (I'm sure you have heard of it) has taken on more purpose than Fermi had intended. You see the purpose of what I wrote now?
If you think that’s been misused, remember Claude Shannon himself even came out and said “come on everyone stop using my theories to say things they don’t say”. While I firmly believe there is other intelligent life in the universe, I feel the insane distances involved, along with the universe still expanding, means we’ll never meet each other.
@@AndrewBlucher I think ever sadly. I think by the time a civilization might get close to some kind of FTL technology, they’ll probably end up offing themselves or their society will decline long before they get there.
@@AndrewBlucher No, never meaning its actual meaning of never. We handwave the ability to travel between the stars far too easily. It is insanely difficult, assuming anyone even tries in the first place. We have done it only twice and our first attempt isnt even out of the Solar System by some metrics. If we want to live in a fantasy, than sure, lets talk about all the alien civilizations that may or may not exist out there, but if we want to live in reality, we need to be honest about the actual physical limitations the universe imposes on us. They are numerous and oppressive and - as far as we have observed - without exception (a consequence of a sample of 1).
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
I wrote a scholarly paper on exobiology, reviewing all available pertinent literature, as a college freshman in 1974. The primary conclusion is the same as yours. There is no lower limit to the birth rate. There is no data at all on the death rate, as we ourselves could hit technological death at any time. Sagan realized this in the 1975-1977 range, and proposed nuclear winter as a possible mechanism. As an actuary, there are certain further maths that are relevant to the equations. One relates to ruin theory, and in this case focuses on the high slope part of the curve, as that is the part of the curve that is humanly 'interesting'. The most interesting part of the curve, to me, is how many planetary and stellar systems WE (earth) occupy in humanity's future. This includes augmented humanity. If that number is significantly more than one, next consider death contagion. It's possible that if life on mother Earth goes extinct, that lands a crushing (psychological or economic) blow to the newer worlds.It's also possible that the explorers won't really worry about life on Earth once takeoff point is achieved. Finally, it's possible that one or more greater intelligences exist, either aiding or hindering our potential to expand beyond this solar system. It's also possible that advances in physics/propulsion/life span will make expansion trivial. Or, that some combination of human idiocy kills 90%+ of humanity, returning humanity to the brutish and short phase, temporarily or permanently. None of these have any fine mathematical predictive power, save the the chances for each of the listed outcomes appears to be greater than zero.
A bodhisattva of science. You teach us how to think. And you accomplish this in the format of playfully expanding our imagination. The most pleasant of arts.
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." - Douglas Noel Adams
Given an infinite number of planets, If only one of two planets is inhabited, there is still a infinite number of inhabited planets. The same if one in a hundred, thousand, million, trillion, etc
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
@@alfaeco15 yeah this guy sounds like he doesn't know much math lol If there are an infinite number of planets, it would then follow that there are also an infinite number of inhabited planets, regardless of how unlikely it may be. They would simply be "different" infinities in that inhabited planets are less common My calculus professor explained this exact idea to me but with decimals and rational numbers. No wonder the guy that said this was an author and not a mathematician lol
@@djsarg7451that is a bold statement. There are 2000 trilion galaxys with each 100 bilion stars. If we are alone then someone God ? wasted a lot of space
Do we not definitionally live in the expansion phase of a civilisation, our own? It may be a very brief window but here we are. The issue I have with the ‘statistically unlikely’ approach is that everything at play here is statistically unlikely. The idea that something which is demonstrably possible has happened exactly once is… a little silly to me.
I forget the name of the fallacy, but you've fallen victim to it. Just because something can happen once, doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen again in a limited scenario. In this case, the limits are our galaxy and the current age of the universe. (There are actually many more limits, but let's go with this for the sake of simplicity.) For example, let's say that the odds of any independent life form evolving to radio-transmission levels, within our galaxy, within our epoch, are 1 in 1 quintillion. If that's true, and we are that happy 1 in 1 quintillion, it would be entirely unreasonable to expect to see any signs of other life at all. i.e. just because we are here, doesn't change the odds, except to say "it's possible".
@@simontmnRome did not decline it just morphed into a different kind of power. All 'civilisations' as we know them did not cease - they became the stepping stones to the so called civilisation we have now.
What corresponds to what we see? A universe in which tech civilizations are so rare as to be invisible to us. This could change tomorrow with a verifiable alien transmission but like Sagan I have to go with withholding belief until there is evidence.
@@w0mblemaniaso...you are saying that life can't exist outside of the milky way and can only exist in under a epoch. yeah no and where are you getting these numbers from. we don't know how common life is yet
It's pretty simple, if our solar system can support advanced life forms like ourselves than it absolutely is common across the universe. I mean life thrives in some of the most inhospitable places on our planet meaning life thriving on planets made of stuff we don't have on our planet is a possibility. The idea we are some sort of a one a in a 750 trillion lucky planet is beyond ridiculous. Given the unbelievable time frames we are talking about, the extreme difficulty in navigating the universe just outside of your own solar system, communication with other life forms is also extraordinarily difficult again due to the size of the universe and a myriad of other issues, it is entirely plausible for extremely advanced civilizations to die out before they can ever venture outside of their own solar systems.
Possible objection, curious what you think about it: If the anthropic principle explains finetuning (why the universe and laws of physics appear to be finetuned so they can support life) because we live in a multiverse, then you would expect the birth/death ratio to be solely determined by the distribution of universes that can support life (weighted by how common life is in that universe). This distribution wouldn't necessarily display Jaynes' effect. One might reason that as the birth/death ratio goes up, the probability of a universe being this finetuned might exponentially decay. With the B/D ratio scaling (less than!) linearly with the occupation fraction/amount of observers + higher B/D ratio worlds being exponentially more unlikely, one could argue most observers are expected to be in low B/D ratio worlds. Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
I was involved in the seti@home project, and the attitude there wasn't that anyone really expected to find a signal, but that we should be looking, as a fairly active computer hobbyist, I used seti packets as a performance benchmark for years, just for the giggle value. I clearly remember the swell of... pride in building a new hotrod machine, and see the packet time drop from 10 hours to 2.5.
But what if we add +1 to the equation? We already know of one, supposedly, intelligent civilisation. The star system we know best brings us off the zero mark. Love your work!
It's not a fine tuning problem, it goes much deeper than that. It's that loads of humans, earn loads of money, building equipment that only humans understand to search for how humans on other planets would behave. When we cannot see them out there using TV's, cell phones etc. then we default to either - we are alone or we are the only intelligent one's. The fundamental question is how would a species far ahead of us communicate. Even we know that the frequency spectrum has its disadvantages, maybe they have over come this and are thus unseen by us.
You touched on a very important point. People have a natural bias when investigating alien life, we tend to think they are like us. They could be very different. Have you ever considered that one alien might have an IQ of 1000, but still be in a society that uses stones and bows? Simply because for some odd reason they didn't evolve the tech, even though they have an IQ of 1000.
We tend to overthink things because we can only see things from our own perspective. Also we only see things that are in our own dimension and viewpoint, and that we are able to comprehend, classical monkey through a keyhole. Our brains might not be able to process all the information that is coming our way. We are like eagerly awaiting puppies waiting for alien communications, but seriously though when we can’t even understand or comprehend other earth animals communication that are highly intelligent such as dolphins or whales, what chance do we have of being able to understand aliens?
Need to face facts- it's just us and a few scraps of lichens out there in the observable universe. Cool Worlds has the intellectual courage to take on the Eerie Silence and provide a solid statistical answer for it but one no one will like. We need to keep searching, but don't expect to find Dyson-sphere-builders or angelic alien super-minds- it's just not in the cards.
Something that this does for me, as a SETI optimist, is that, even if we are on the bottom plateau of your equation, it implies that eventually, humanity may be able to "watch" the galaxy/universe populate. To me, this doesn't prove than aliens *can't* exist, so much as it proves that they don't exist *yet*. And to me, that is incredibly promising.
I've come to understand recently just how many events led up to us and how many more are necessary to become a spacefaring civilisation, which alone is quite the feat. No wonder we can't see anyone.
In terms of adding new perspective to the 'where is everybody' issue, this seems like a real breakthrough in logic that feels like very solid ground to make an informed conclusion that the universe is indeed probably empty at this point in time. In terms of inspiration I don't find this nearly as depressing as it's presented though. To me, this seems like a grand opportunity to be the spark at the beginning of that upward curve. It's interesting to me that humans want to see themselves as so unremarkable that we need to find some other civilazation to confirm we're just random lifeforms on a rock. Perhaps so we can leave the burden of exploration to someone else...so we can be handed the knowledge about the nature of existence without us having to do the unfathomable work of having to figure it out ourselves over the next few eons. Maybe we're missing the cosmic joke that we are still so very special and our generation has the unique position of being at the very start of that civilization that will inevitably colonize every star in the universe. Maybe our desire to know everything is just so much bigger than the small fraction of time we're allotted to exist will allow. It's a bit like getting to the mountain peak to see another infinite number of mountains in front of you....but you're the only one there to climb them and that still means something. Pretty cool to me! Love this channel, thanks for doing what you do and doing the real work to help us all wonder.
The problem with this equation is thinking of humans as one single civilization inhabiting our planet. There are human civilizations that have come and gone and are now extinct. Many of them. All of human kind did not experience the industrial revolution, only certain civilizations made it to industrialization and computerization among the many inhabiting the planet. We still have hunter gatherer people inhabiting the planet with rocket launching people. Calling all of that one human civilization is too simple and can't represent a value of 1 in the equation. If there are aliens, it's safe to assume that not every alien has a space ship or the resources to travel the stars. They may have a shadow government controlling all the best technology too, who knows.
It is safe to say that if not for western/european civilization, most humans would still be living in medieval age (China, Japan, Middle East) and the rest would be living in bronze age or less, like Africans, Oceania and native americans.. So 1 out of 100 humans civilizations made it to the industrial revolution (and took others with them later) If europeans went extinc in 1200 somehow by plague, there would be no tech signals coming from earth
You are right, but is it relevant? The way I look at it the answer to the question whether there is a civilization on a planet is a binary one. There is a population that meets the criteria for civilization or there is not. Where you draw the line is of course rather subjective
@@silentwilly2983 Agreed. Throwing in some more discussion, sure there’s some societies more technologically advanced than others, but a neolithic civilisation is not relevant to the search for alien life via current technological means.
we also have many animals that arguably could be considered civilized, whales have incredibly complex language, but clearly are physically incapable of building tech and have no need for a home, Crows can use tools and communicate, even teach their young about individual humans
Thanks for another thoughtful video. But I have some doubt about some of the reasonings here. First of all, you are using a logarithm scale for lambda_bd, which makes the intermediate region appear narrow. In other words, you are assuming that the log of lambda_bd follows more or less a uniform distribution. I don’t see any justification for that. Secondly, it is far from certain our galaxy has reached the equilibrium . It could well be that lambda_bd is quite large but we are still in the early innings of civilization emergence. In other words, both terms are tiny but the ratio is large. We are turning on the lights in the galaxy slowly but steadily. I remember you have a video hypothesize that we might be the early ones. Finally, even if all your assumptions were true, as lambda_bd gets smaller, the occupancy ratio is really close to lambda_bd itself, and not zero. It may be small but given the number of stars in the galaxy the total civilizations can still be large. There is no need to despair.
CIVILIZATION BLINK RATE Q: Hypothetically, if Moore's Law continues indefinitely, then how many years before a silicon computer must become an optical computer, then subatomic computer, and then for superintelligence to operate most efficiently the computer must be made of neutron star or quark star material? How many years for the shrinking CPU to become so miniaturized that it becomes identical to a primordial black hole? How many years does the math dictate when that would be necessary? Just as a mathematical exercise. Now, if all superintelligent alien civilizations followed Moore's Law in this way, and entire planets and solar systems were converted into pure CPU's, would that 500?-year progression be detectable from Earth, merely a quick blink at galactic time scales? Exponential growth has a way of growing exponentially. Until the limits of the physical substrates of intelligence, the Planck-scale circuitry. Would trillions of such quark-plasma CPU's all over the galaxy behave like dark matter?
High energy condensed matter physics would have to structure the sun's material into logic gates, and then AI could run there. Maybe that's where all the ET's went to live, or at least their AI avatars did.
Moore's Law isn't holding up though even here. It is still relevant but the timeframe for doubling of processors isn't what was stated. Many think we have already reached the physical limitations for silicon-based processors. If the limit hasn't been reached or there is no limit, then eventually any civilization wishing to increase or maintain the rate would have to spend more and more of its resources to the point that everything they have would be required.
@@gishjalmr5628 That's why better substrates than silicon are being developed, even down to the spintronics or optical computing level, and why several trillion dollars are to be spent just on manufacturing the AI chips. They are so incredibly valuable that every possible unit of computing is being maximized, everything humanly possible for civilization to create greater AI, with whatever materials and energy sources are available. Jensen Huang (CEO of NVidia) and Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) have basically said so, repeatedly. We are literally ... giving it our all.
What a fabulous new approach to considering the Drake Equation--and, of course, the Fermi Paradox. Dr. Kipping breaks new ground--again. I'm so proud to support this channel. My problem with the Drake and Fermi challenges has been that few assessments so far have integrated an astrophysical conclusion with the input of abiogenesis, biology, evolution, paleontology, anthropology, history and the philosophy of civilizations and technology. If we continue spending a lot of time and money on the search for alien life forms in the universe, let alone intelligent life, a confident assessment should absolutely recruit the regard of those other disciplines. No? I say that as someone who maintains a personal list of all the implausible turns of fortune that permitted life on Earth to get this far. It's a long and daunting list. If ever such a grand, integrated effort to answer the alien life dilemma gathers together multiple fields of study, I sure hope David Kipping is in that room.
This is actually a good example of why not to oversimplify things, and why some of the factors in the Drake Equation are important. Life, intelligent life, technological life, and detectable technological life are all different things, and not does not necessarily follow the previous one. Another important factor, is that, despite our best efforts so far, we are just barely scratching the barest surface of detection efforts, and at present even a nearby civilization at a technological level comparable to our own would be very difficult to detect. We simply lack the ability to conduct proper surveys so far, and as a result we lack the data to make predictions that fall much out of the philosophy side of things rather than actually standing firmly in the science side of things.
Taking the beaker analogy, what if a random, unknown number of the beakers are empty. Then, no, compound x won't dissolve. If you don't know how many beakers are empty, then instead of close to 0 or 100%, we should expect either close to 0 or 50%. Anything that would make a planet permanently uninhabitable would be like an empty beaker. And that brings some of the vagaries and problems with the Drake equation back into the mix.
Exactly. The Kipping formulation is useful but assumes homogeneity of the population. The answer could be that we are at the “near 100 percent” end of the set of X-type stars with Y-type planets in the Z-band of their lifetimes…a number as mysterious as it ever was.
@@HonorableBoor I still think their model assumes homogeneity *at every scale* of unit choice or size (LY^3 or planets or whatever). At smaller scales homogeneity shrinks and the model’s power decreases. The beakers are not comparable. At larger scales homogeneity among cells increases, which does make this model interesting but begins to limit its application to a galaxy rife with regional features. This homogeneity/scalability problem is not unique to what they’re trying to do - it’s inherent in any survey sample estimate and I suspect trying to apply this model to a heterogeneous galaxy (uninhabitable center, spiral arms, interstellar dense cloud regions) would be informative but challenged as you run out of degrees of freedom…in other words, there would so many 0-100 spectra to multiple against each other you’d be drifting back to Fermi. [I say all this having not read the paper. Mea culpa.]
Why are we just assuming we will know a technological civilization when we are looking at one/many? Think, civilization is to our knowledge 5500-6k years old with sumeria. Maybe some slightly older cooperation of various levels we are just now discovering. Our current capabilities would look like inconceivable god magic to people just 500 years ago nevermind 5000 or 50,000 or to whatever mammal ancestor was around at 50 million years. These timescales for how far in the past we would have to go for our ancestors to think we are all gods is so insignificant in earths history let alone the universes-why would we ever assume we would recognize another form of life/technology even while looking right at it with everything we’ve got? the assumption should realistically be we would not know what we were looking at. Thanks to awesome channels like yours I am vividly in awe of just how much we know we don’t know when we look up (nevermind what we don’t know that we don’t know!) so I’d say there’s still airtight logic in being optimistic!
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
@@djsarg7451 most of that is wrong or at best a half truth which you take the worst of all possible assumptions on, i dont want to be rude but im not spending the time to go through one by one thats just too unreasonable, and absolutely none of it confronts my actual point. humans from 500 years ago would not recognize radio waves or nuclear reactors or certain biosignatures in the atmosphere or cell signals etc as signs of life, they could not fathom getting to space or viewing/creating digital memories or talking to someone on the other side of the world instantly and would view us all as gods. those are humans-the literal exact same as us evolved on the same planet just 500 years apart. the idea that we would readily recognize life on a different planet when looking at it when it likely (but not guaranteed) evolved differently and is likely far more than just those 500 years apart is just silly. life there could be structured in a way that we could never even fathom, it could be structured in a way that our human form with eyes and ears and our tools can simply never observe even if we could fathom it. it could be silica based, it could be plasma based, it could be-literally-anything.
"Only a Sith deals in Absolutes" - or more seriously - I am doubtful of that "all or nothing" idea. It would have to be expanded really - it would also imply that basically if you have life on a planet at all, it either almost never develops into multicellular life or it almost always does. It either almost always develops a civilization or it almost never does. And then you end up with a galaxy that either has civilizations and life on almost all planets or on almost none - and at the same time it means that it would be improbable to have life without civilization on any other planet. And I think that makes it more likely that we dont deal in absolutes but that basically something similar to the Drake equation makes sense - to describe each of the features of technological life separately because it could be something in between.
I disagree with the conclusion that F has to be very small or large with a high probability in the steady state model that was presented. The reason it seems that way is because the plot shown in 10:30 is logaritmic, not linear. Nothing wrong with log-plots, but they don't really reveal how "many" numbers lie in a certain interval. What I mean by this is that the "size" of the set A = [ 0 = 10^-∞, 10^-6] is 10^-6 but the "size" of the set B = [0.2 ≈ 10^0, 0.8 ≈ 10^0] is about 1, about a million times larger than B. So, the case that λ_(bd) has a really high negative exponent is not more likely than it having an exponent that is close to 0. If the explanation above seems difficult to understand, just take the function x / (1 + x) and make a linear i.e. a normal plot of it in the range of [0, ∞]. You will see that it covers all ranges of F from 0 to 1 pretty uniformly in x and then asymptotically approaching 1. There is no spike, i.e. it does not look like a step function, which it would need to look like if you wanted to reach the same conclusion as was presented in the video. I can agree with the fact that λ_(bd) is probably not large since F is probably not close to 1. However, that does not really tell anything how small F is as was reasoned above. It could be 0.5 for all we know. DISCLAIMER: I do actually agree with the conclusion if it can be shown that λ_(bd) is uniformly distributed in the log interval, shown in 10:30. However, the reasoning of why that would be the case was not shown in the video. This would be a fact that would really warrant an explanation since the whole argument of this video is based on that premise. I don't really understand why λ_(bd) should be log-distributed and I think normal uniform distribution would be more reasonable. However, someone that has read this subject more thorougly than me can explain why this is the case.
It’s a subtle point and one I didn’t justify in detail in the video for the sake of brevity. If you have a scale parameter (such as this one) that is bound between two positive real numbers, then the reference prior (also known as the Jeffreys prior) is a lot-uniform distribution. This is essentially the prior that is most agnostic, least informative - imposes the minimal possible bias or preference into the analysis. It’s rigorously found by computing the Fisher information matrix and then evaluating the determinant of said matrix. A normal distribution would be much more informative, since it has a defined mean value. That’s appropriate for a measurement of something, but not for a positive real scalar like this.
@@CoolWorldsLab Wow, I did not expect a reply straight from you! I am honored! The subject I wrote in the question above actually started to intrique me somewhat and I took some time to read your paper and about prior distributions. It has been a while since I studied bayesian statistics and hence I have been looking for some good reference material for this subject. Do you have some in mind, if I may ask? Again, thanks for replying!
Amazing research and great video as always. A couple thoughts; If Galileo could glimpse the International Space Station with his telescope-a revolutionary technology in his own time-he wouldn’t have the resolution to even guess at what he saw. He would only see a bright moving point in the sky. The difference in our level of technology from Galileo’s time is impressive, but it might pale in comparison to the difference in technology between a Kardashev 0.7 civilization and a Level 3 civilization. An alien civilization capable of colonizing the galaxy would possess exotic technology that we may not have even dreamed of yet. I’ve always thought it presumptive to assume that we would be able to identify their presence at this point in our development. If we assume there’s some merit to this argument, this makes it difficult to dismiss the high-occupation scenario. We still wouldn’t have a clue where we were on the curve unless we improbably spot another sub 1 civilization. And then we would have an n of 2.
If the galaxy was teeming with life I believe we'd have accidentally happened upon it by now. If there is intelligent life out there, I believe we are on the small upswing of Kipping's graph and we are above average on the timeline of evolution.
assume for a second that not everyone is lying about their stories of close encounters or alien abductions. then imagine being one of those people and watching this video of a guy absolutely convinced that earth has never been visited by a UFO let alone an actual alien entity. I can understand the hesitancy to buy into the drake equation I don't but its nowhere near as ridiculous as the Fermi paradox I can assure you.
You hit the nail on the head at the end, "Maybe were looking in the wrong place.". This is my conclusion as radio waves are not everything, we know they are too slow for communication across star systems and solar systems. The must be a something else, in Statrek they called it subspace, it could be anything we just dont know yet.
and perhaps nobody builds dyson spheres because they have some breakthrough in physics that allows them to have unimaginable power generation on a much smaller scale. need more data.
@@melangearrakis You don't need a Dyson sphere when you can tap into the potential electrical energy of the universe. Imagine the electrical energy that's created from the magnetic fields of stars and planets which all rotate. It's unimaginable but totally possible within the laws of physics.
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
Thank you, Dr. Kipping, and the Cool Worlds team for this video. One of the things I appreciate most about your channel is your willingness to share perspectives that challenge the prevailing cultural narratives. While science must evolve with new information and synthesize data into new hypotheses, cultural shifts aren't typically grounded in evidence. Because of this, I believe it's a mistake for science to be swayed by cultural trends.
I have some questions about this: As far as I've understood from watching the video and reading the paper, you assume that lambda is distributed log-uniformly between some lambda_min and lambda_max. You then calculate the probability distribution for the occupation fraction F using that assumed prior. My remarks are: 1. You can pretty much choose arbitrarily low values for lambda_min. Doesn't this choice already presuppose the conclusion when choosing very small values of lambda_min, like 10^(-10^10)? I can't really see what prior distribution the choice of that lambda_min itself should follow. 2. In your paper i haven't found any calculation for the expected value of F using this prior. I find it hard to come to any conclusions about the observations (like you do) without seeing directly which impact assumptions about lambda_min/max have to . So I (tried to) did it myself: I took your prior function Pr(F) dF and integrated \int_{F_min}^{F_max} F Pr(F) dF. I conservatively chose F_max = 10^-3, because values much higher are ruled out by observations. Note, that this also rules out even the "Zone 1" in your diagram. This gives: For lambda_min = 10^-10: F = 6e-5 For lambda_min = 10^-30: F = 1e-5 For lambda_min = 10^-100: F = 5e-6 For lambda_min = 10^-1000: F = 4e-7 Considering that there are surveys like GAIA looking at about 10^9 objects, I think your calculations are not neccesarily a cause for despair, even for very small values of lambda_min. I would be very interested in what you think about this. PS: The expactation value for F is ( ln(lambda_max+1) - ln(lambda_min+1) ) / ( ln(lambda_max) - ln(lambda_min) ), approximately lambda_max / ( ln(lambda_max) - ln(lambda_min) ) for small values of lambda_max.
My opinion: We are still too early in our Universe to see multiple civilizations to exist at the same period of time and at locations where contact is possible.. This would be a VERY lucky event so early in the universe considering intelligent life here took 1/3 of the Universe's age to appear... If another civilzation is alive right now, chances are they are more than 1 million light years away.. Also, 4 billions years of stability must be a very rare occasion in our early universe... People underestimate the hostility of the universe, the distances involved and how intelligent life must be a glimpse in astronomic terms
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone. The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone. 1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms. 2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements. 2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life. 3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life. Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun? The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system. Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life. Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water. Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found) The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V. Only half of the G2V stars are solitary. Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6. Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05) G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K And on and on. We are alone.
Jumping from flasks that are almost identical to planets that have been shown to be extremely varied is a huge leap! Consider a more relevant flask example. Take a bunch of flasks with random mixtures of 20 different chemicals and ask how many will dissolve your additive. Even if you know what the 20 chemicals are, you are still going to be hard pressed to make an accurate guess. I am going to try to watch more of this. But it really puts me off seeing such a wild non-sequitor.
Hello David, I landed here after watching your interview with Lex Fridman, I was really caught by the accuracy with which you present your thoughts 👏 About this video, really appreciate how you (and others) were able to build a reasonig and get conclusions on such precarious grounds (the little we know) 👏 Now my question: when you say "if lambda BD was really high we should see technological signature everywhere around us"... perhaps it's me but I'm missing the consideration of how the technological age could be incredibly ephemeral, meaning life could be everywhere and lasts millions/billions of years but when the phase transition to technology happens.. it's an instant in cosmological scale. I like to think to civilizations as lighting bolts, even in a stormy night full of bolts and thinders each one lasts few milliseconds and if you were a lighting and you looked around during those milliseconds...you probably wouldn't see any other lighting, and you would ask yourself "Really?! am I alone?!" Thank you very much for all your top quality contents 💙
@@twonumber22 his language is good at deradicalizing anti-science fundamentalists but imo doesnt push ya much once youre able to get into science as a more critical thinker
Yes, based on all the available information and after crunching some numbers I conclude that our existence is statistically improbably, so much so that I tend to regard all the actual people I regularly encounter day to day as little more than a curious and highly eccentric artifact of floating point arithmetic imprecision; a continuously growing cumulative error.
This increases even further the Copernicus Paradox. Why we are in a planet where technology can be develop when practically all habitable planets technology development is impossible?
@@filonin2 I think that you are missing the point. You should be able to ask the question If intelligent life can came into existence in planets where technology cannot develop (a ocean planet or in a planet with instabilities as in M-Star systems or many others).
I love the approach, and it informs us of a likely outcome in a way which the drake equation cannot (my issue with it has always been its arbitrary unbounded nature) There are still many many variables which are unknown and unaccounted for however, so while i understand the pessimism, I wouldn't wallow in it too much.
I've been a fan of this channel for a long time, and this is one of my favorites. While listening to the birth/death theory, I couldn't help thinking about the simulation hypothesis. The absence of detectable civilizations always takes me to the simulation hypothesis. My mind then immediately takes me to the double slit experiments where light wave functions suddenly collapse and change from a wave to a particle when being observed. I'm not a PHD experimental physicist, but this phenomenon scares the hell out of me.
This is one of the few channels, if not the only one, where the presenter has not been afraid to disagree with the optimistic search for life. He's expressed his skepticism in other videos and I think it's refreshing. I think some anti science logic has become so ingrained that people cannot fathom the opposite being true. We've all heard that "Is arrogant and self centered to think we are the only ones in the galaxy" but like... Even scientist think there's a strong, rational, chance that's the case.
That’s actually a good point, too. There always has to be first and we may very well be that. However, if that was the case then we would forever be confused and ever searching for an eternity.
Maybe we are, it's something I've wondered. Particularly considering that in the life-bearing period of the universe, we seem to have developed suspiciously close to the beginning of it (given it's trillions of years long).
I'm sorry I have to say this but mainstream science needs a reality check. When goverments all over the world are worried about what flying in the skies that no one can explain scientist should pay more attention. An alien civilization could be 100% different from all the scientific methods we apply to comunicate or discover them. The science may be absolete here and we need to change our way of understanding other worlds. We may exceeded in math but our theories are as best as our primitive thinking.
Even if there is only 1 advanced civilization per galaxy, that is still trillions . The question is, could we ever hope to detect a civilization.... that far away .
It seems to me that the most likely explanation is indeed just that we are at the forefront of the "state change" in our galaxy of it becoming colonized with life. Even just looking back over the last 100 years of human civilization, it is incredibly apparent. We are growing and expanding at an ever increasing rate, and really if anything we are now able to peer into the future through the lens provided by your paper. Very very intriguing :)
3 observations: 1. Compared to its lifespan, the universe is young as is the galaxy. 2. Cognitive science suggest that life and self-awareness are not too uncommon in the galaxy, but that intelligence and the evolutionary means to implement it may be very rare. 3. The speed of light is very slow and there are many puzzles about the nature of the universe and galaxy that we have yet to understand. I am in the camp of those who believe that intelligent life on earth may be a one off in the galaxy, if not the universe, and that we should do everything we can to preserve it and propagate it through the universe
What was the formula for that S shaped curve? and that probability curve with the valley? It would be nice to see those on the screen when you show graphs like that.
Brilliant treatment of this subject. As you pointed out, the alone vs teaming gambit assumes that all simple life will eventually develop technology but what if that's not the case. We might have a galaxy teaming with squirrels and janitors sweeping floors, that leave no technological signatures.
So, you do touch on this towards the end, so I am not saying you (and others) completely ignore this point, but I'd like to add perspective to the "simpler" civilizations bit. It *really* depends on what we classify as "simple" and what we expect as the "norm" of expected progress and it would be great if more people could consider that. For context and to show that it can take a while to maybe have a more varied view: I did my undergrad in physics, then did complex dynamic systems modeling in grad school and gradually drifted towards computational neuroscience. During my postdoc and later faculty position I got to work with a more diverse group of researchers for the first time. I came into my postdoc research thinking I have a decent grasp on how much we know or don't know about human cognition but then had to learn that basing our wealth of knowledge on a population of 90% college students from a very particular life style background might possibly be a tad too simplistic. Not all cultures are like the European-influenced subjects we had data from, not all languages work the way English does, not all cognitive tasks are mastered equally by people from different backgrounds. Yet, we know that on a structural level a person is the same no matter if they are from a community that has no concept of ownership or one that has no concept of counting in numbers higher than a handful or whether they are a NASA scientist. So... are we classifying one community as "higher" civilization and the others as not, simply because only one of these would be able to send communicative messages to other worlds? You are obviously not saying that humans who do not live in the same culture as you or me, or humans 5000 or 10,000 years, or even 500k years, ago were simpler than we are now. But at the same time, there seems to be an implication that out of the cognitive complexity of the kind that our particular species of ape has to work with, technological progress of a very specific kind necessarily should emerge. It also somewhat necessarily implies that any species with this sort of cognitive complexity would have similar goals and means to reach them. And those are conceptual hurdles I somewhat struggle with. I really wonder how much the historical fact of the particular type of historical developments that happened to influence our species' progress influences our notions about "typicality". If you ever did a video on why these assumptions should hold, I'd be happy if anyone could share a link. If not, maybe that's a video idea to consider ;)
It’s absolutely incredible that we can use sheer logic and reasoning to draw conclusions for things which we have so little data. If hypothetically we were to establish contact with someone out there, could the same skills be used to decipher their language? I realize this might be a little too speculative for your taste, but I would love to see a video on something like that! Anyway, much love! I look forward to every new video from this channel ❤
Subscribed. Initially because it’s not AI and I can see the actual person. Yes, it’s come to this. Who would’ve thought. But also well done, how have I not come across this channel before.
That was awesome. Very thought provoking. I see it like tuning in a radio station with a dial. Instead of silence, what if we fine tuned our search criteria to an actual area where reception is possible rather than a veritable endless white noise, hoping for the best? You never know but all of a sudden we could be flooded with new and exciting data.
I just watched Avi Loeb's TED talk and was reminded of this video. I love the science I see here. Fair enough, all that Loeb suggests in his talk is that we keep looking and spend money on that endeavour rather than shooting at each other. And that's alright with me.
Have you considered that the birth to death ratio may oscillate rather than be continuously rising or falling or remaining steady. Eg, in earths history boom and bust population cycles are common, viz the 5 mass extinctions that were followed by biodiversity explosions eg the Cambrian explosion. Also chaos effects allowing possibility of random oscillations around a mean may be relevant. If the Galaxy could be in one of the oscillations with a low Birth to death ratio, but way in future it may be way a higher, ratio. Food for Thought! Thanks
FAQs (keep ‘em coming!):
1. "We’re here, so that proves/implies intelligences are common", or "sets a lower bound on lambda_B (the birth rate)". Sadly not! We only observe ourselves because we exist, it couldn’t be any other way. This is a product of the weak anthropic principle. For example, you might naively conclude that 1/lambda_B ~ 4 billion years, since thats how long it took on Earth to get to us. But Brandon Carter’s paper (arxiv.org/abs/0711.1985) exemplifies why this thinking is wrong with an analogy of hard locks. If a lock takes 100 years to pick, on average, but only 10 minutes have passed by thus far, one might guess no-one could have possibly succeeded. But, in fact, given enough independent lock pickers, someone will luckily pick the lock very quickly. That person would then be in error to conclude their lock pick time was typical. The basic issue is you just can’t use “us” as a data point, because we *are* the observers and thus “us” is not a fair, representative sample from the distribution. I've also written about this extensively before, see arxiv.org/abs/2005.09008 and ruclips.net/video/iLbbpRYRW5Y/видео.html
2. "You said the flasks are all nearly similar, but planets could be very different from one another!" True, good point. I somewhat regret emphasizing the similarity between the flasks, I used that analogy to make things easy to follow but it adds a confusion with deeper thought. In fact, the flasks could be wildly different and the conclusion is the same. Let’s make some boiling, some acidic, some salty, etc. In doing so, we make some choices as to how to diversify them. The thing is, it’s very unlikely that the choices we make here will just so happen to split the sample 50:50 between dissolving and not dissolving. Because remember we made those choices in the absence of any information about compound X, so why should they happen to divide the sample evenly like this? Another way of thinking about it is that there is some logistic function which acts like a switch between dissolving and not dissolving, with the x-axis being the conditions of each flask. The neck of this logistic, the switch point, occurs at some unknown position, A. To get a 50:50 split, the conditions would have to saddle the neck of the logistic curve event on each side, but the logistic extends very far in both directions, so it’s pretty unlikely we’d happen to choose a set of flasks that land 50:50 either side of the unknown switch point A. Hopefully this extra analogy helps, but at the end of the day it might be helpful to look Jaynes’ paper (ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4082152)
Just such a great video, thank you, it really widened my perspective on this. And thanks for the FAQs
I agree with the first point. The second is a very simplistic analysis. Solubility is not a binary function. Also the solubility in the mixture is not a single variable linear function. It is a multivariable nonlinear function. So while 50-50 is not likely, neither are 100-0 or 0-100.
While has-life may seem binary, there is a huge range from barely supporting single cell life to comfortable supporting a space faring civilization. So, properly analyzed, the analogy is reasonable.
Isn't there a paradox wherein the more technologically advanced we become, the more easily we might extinct ourselves by accidents and the complications of such events? If that would hold true in a grander scale, then the universe being mostly empty would actually make sense - that life could be common enough, but that survival (or more to the point, civilizations surviving themselves) would be extremely rare.
@@johnbennett1465 So... we just don't know because we don't have the data?
@@holographic_red correct. That is my current understanding of the situation.
Absolutely compelling and a fresh take on the Fermi Paradox that's going to give me pondering material for a good long while. For anyone interested in the possibilities of other life in the universe, this is a gem. And also, exomoons! We want exomoons!
Thanks JMG!
JMG you are the GOAT man. You and Dr. Kipping are shining beacons on the hill of what is the internet.
I can't wait to hear this conversation on Event Horizon!
♥️💜
John Michael GOATier
I'd like to mention that it's really nice that you do not use background music. It helps me to concentrate on what you say and your voice is so soothing too.
Dr. Kipping's voice is the music.
He does use background music in some videos but subtly and it's very effective. Here it works best without it because it's a discussion of their latest paper.
I'm so tired of content creators who either don't have trust on their own material and have to fill with music- or consider their audience as infantiles who need constant noise.
Thank you for not using empty filling music
It’s an excellent observation with which I agree. I also appreciate how the visuals actually have _some_ connection with what is being said on the screen, as opposed to just being random stock videos of stars, nebulae, galaxies, and anything else that might look “astronomical.”
I would like to second this
Drake never meant the equation to be used. He meant it to be an agenda for discussion at the astrophysics conference where he presented it.
Boy, how successful that turned out to be, though.
It was meant to simply get the proverbial ball rolling on merely *thinking* about how many variables there are to consider in this search. The beginnings of life on our *own* planet are still veiled in mystery, though we've made some headway. If we can't even define how many miraculous coincindences needed to occur here on the world we are most familiar with, how likely are we to figure it out for a world on the other side of the galaxy!?🤯😵
I think it was only ment as a thought experiment
A what if scenario if you will
Now I have no idea what to say or think about this
But to me that is what I would take from it
Q fun way of thinking about the galaxy and the possibility of life elsewhere
And as always a great video from a great Channel 👍
Just saying 🇳🇴
Not actually. Original big bang theory clearly indicates there is life put there certainly... statistically this theory assu,es anything os part of only one function therefore mathe,aghically its certain there is lofe put there tough todays researchers do not use math/statistics analysis prorocols by simplifying comples logics... so thats wjy they assume life is only on visible spectrum :P😂😢😮😅😊
Seems human, it checks out.
As an uneducated layman, I'm genuinely grateful for the way you explain your theories to the likes of me. Thank you, my friend.
The fact that we took 4 billion (with 1 Billion years left before life dies out entirely) years to evolve, 1/3 the age of Universe is a serious issue. Prokaryotes evolve very quickly; however, eukaryotes unambiguously evolved 1.6 bya, multicellular life evolved 0.6 bya, so combination evolution of eukaryotes, multicellular life, & intelligence is a great filter. We're lucky to be here.
One thing to consider is life may take much longer, or barely any time at all to get where we are. Arguably, life never needed to take the leap to eukaryotic multicellular organisms. They were trucking on for 3 billion years without any issues. But a catalyst eventually made that happen. Be it from Arobic organisms surviving the great oxygenation events. To an early eukaryotic cell engulfing a bacteria and utilizing it as an ADP factory instead of a meal (mitochondria). And then when multicellular life took over it was FAST. But the evolutionary advantage of intelligence didn't take over. There very well could be a scenario where shortly after the earths oceans formed eukaryotic organisms took over and multicellular life was on the scene 2 billion years ago. And then there would be a reason that a sentient species popped up in 200 million years vs 500-600 million years like it did here. Etc. There is no reason that intelligent organisms couldn't have arrived during the jurassic for example. Plenty of time to develop intelligence during that period. So there could have been organisms walking on the moon 1.5 billion years ago. And the inverse of that is true. Life could have just stayed a prokaryotic sludge to this day.
One would also have to take into account that on a large scale, the Earth was basically destroyed a handful of times at the very least, so Life kind of had to start from scratch. How many times are cataclysmic events happening on other worlds that COULD support life?
Where do you get the 1 billion years until life dies entirely?
@@antonysherry4267 Because Sun will be 10% hotter in 1 Billion years, enough to boil away our oceans into space.
I don't think it is when you consider not just the age of the universe, but the size of it. Given the estimates of the number of planets in the universe, if even 1 in a billion had ever met conditions potentially conducive to the development of life, there would be trillions of planets where life could have developed. If we're working under the assumption that single-celled life may develop and evolve relatively easily when such conditions are met and more complex life merely requires billions of years to develop afterward, complex life would likely have developed billions of times.
Then why don't we see it? My guess is for the same reasons (the vastness of time and space) that it is likely life did not only occur here on Earth. What are the chances that intelligent life capable of discovering other intelligent life exists at precisely the point in time and in close enough proximity to discover one another? We have a hazy understanding of our own history going back just a few thousand years and it's only in the past hundred years that we've developed the technology to potentially discover other intelligent life beyond our planet. That's less than the blink of an eye when considering the time we believe is required for intelligent life to develop from single-celled organisms. A literal "blink and you missed it!", but with the additional condition that you have to have also been within range to see it! And what is that range? 93 billion light years? You'd have a better chance of discovering a fly that sneezed on pluto 3 million years ago.
"Cool Worlds searched for aliens and what they found was TERRIFYING"
What the title would have been if this was not a real science channel 😅
Omigosh, too funny. 😆
Like most of RUclips click bait. 😢
Believe me, an empty universe is the good outcome.
or that guy with Londo Morali's hair
With JWST and NDT in the thumbnail.
E.T. Jaynes thought experiment is the perfect embodiment of the quote "Once is never, twice is always." Unfortunately, we are stuck on the once is never part of it, both for stars with life in the universe, and in regard to civilization developing on a world filled with life.
Ye, interestingly. Jaynes actually gives a slightly abbreviated version of that, that once is always, zero is never. The reason he said that though was because the observer, in his case of chemical flasks, is a separate entity. In contrast, in astrobiology, we have one known form of life, but it's us. So we can't really include it as a fair datum because we're only here because we're here! i.e. the weak anthropic principle. What you really need is at least one data point disconnected from our causal existence, such as life on Proxima or something.
Sounds like a programmer starting with zero instead of one. I like this.
Unfortunately, or fortunately?
I like this result a lot more than the inverse. Let's take over the galaxy ourselves, then.¹ ✊ The dread *_Imperium of Humankind_* shall be the terror of the cosmos!
_(¹: ...and let's _*_not_*_ get paved over by a star-empire that has no concept of empathy or mercy because they evolved in entirely different circumstances with entirely different biology)_
@@CoolWorldsLabremember, there may be another exception here. For all it's sins, the Drake Equation does ask what percentage of stars / planets provide the conditions for intelligent life to evolve. If that's only 1 star in 1 billion or 1 planet in X (X being the number of planets in the Milky Way), we may still have a galaxy at population capacity. Even if that was 5 or 10 per X, we could still be at capacity without knowing. Your assumption we may be early on the curve or even the first on the curve could indeed be incorrect quite easily with incorrect assumptions. Just a thought. Love your work by the way, can't wait to see the results from your JWST time! ❤
@@pikotech1 That's true, though one can kind of argue the same fine tuning argument against it again. Namely that if it is very unlikely, why would it only be so unlikely that you still get some civilizations then none at all.
Of course obviously there is a chance we are in that range, and that would be some what interesting. But there is probably a pretty good chance that it is all or nothing as such. Even more so as even one civ could as they noted colonize the entire galaxy and fix the low habitability issue while doing so.
I just want to express my most heartfelt gratitude to you for NOT using hyperbolic video titles. It was one of the reasons I first started to watch your channel.
This is a compelling paper - there are a couple of things I find problematic, you address some of these which can mitigate the 0% conclusion, and I am glad you addressed them:
1). As I understand, the formula supposes uniform galaxies across the universe, but we know they vary in both size and shape. Some may have a lot of life, some close to nothing 2). The theory supposes technologically advanced civilizations, but we might be the only ones who’ve gotten this far (though I find that hard to believe). There might be other forms of life we are unaware of, as you said. 3). The signatures we are looking for may be the wrong type. If aliens truly are out there, what are the chances they would be using radio waves? 4). We might be at the very beginning of the curve; earth is 4.5 billion years old. What if take-off on the curve is in another 500 million years?
Been waiting for this update from Cool Worlds for several years. Probes the limits of academic literature relevant to the Fermi paradox and the question of aliens all the while steeping in the ever deeper wonders and mysteries of the universe - Cool Worlds doing what Cool Worlds does best.
This kind of sounds like it was written by AI.
@@takanara7 'cept it wasn't
The growing evidence for some sort of semi derelict biological drones from a civilisation possibly preceding us on this planet does make the position of many scientists be questioned. How many of them were "in the loop" and denied us the knowledge. I find the kardashev scale to be extremely inadequate. Who says that a very evolved civilisation is high in numbers. Quite the opposite is proven by our dropping birth numbers
@@jpx1508 Nice reply. You could be a clever A.I that knows language? Or Mr Cool World. Either way, Peace.
@@jpx1508 It's getting hard to tell!
The irony that Jaynes' initials are E.T. was not lost on me.
Its tripppin me out, was he an alien?
Hehe, I was trawling comments to see if anyone else noticed!
An illegal one
RUclips is either teeming with intelligent scientific channels or there are barely any.
Cool Words is the shining beacon on an otherwise desolate video sharing platform!
Good analogy!
There are some good ones, Dr. Becky, Anton Petrov and Fraser Cain are all great for astronomy stuff. Dr. Kipping had a great interview about Exomoons on Fraser Cain's channel: ruclips.net/video/umiMtQU3bMU/видео.html - BTW: one thing you can do is, if you see stuff that's obviously clickbait b.s. you can actually block the channel from your recommendations (just click the 3 vertical dots on the rec to get a menu and you should be able to block from there). Once you clear out a lot of the bogus channels you'll only get good stuff (problem is you need to already know a lot about science to know what's 'good' or not, so not helpful for people who are just getting into it)
Hello wonderfull person👋@@takanara7
PBS spacetime is top notch as well
@takanara7 I found all these people, including Prof. Kipping, as well before my whole UAP experience in 2022. These people, except for 1 person.
I also got into carpet cleaning. I discovered that the guy I like to watch from Poland; his machines give off a very specific level, a soothing sound.
It actually appears to be a very good sound for soothing the mind. Who knew I would like watching people clean dirty rugs? 😂
I also am not a conspiracy type of person. Never was. I still don't do that after February 2022.
I don't do conspiracy as it's too much work & wasted time, to worry & think about things that way.
Truth & facts are always easier to remember. I have always been that way. I am not creative enough to dream up my UAP.
It's sound/waves.
The problem is that people think of the Drake equation as an actual attempt at prediction when it was just meant to organize a meeting agenda to discuss SETI.
Yeah, well Fermi simply posed a question in passing to some of his colleagues and we can now see what came of that.
I have just discovered your channel via a comment on another video, one of Carl Sagan’s talks and have subscribed and look forward to watching your previous and future content.
I have been fascinated by all things to do with space like many people since an early age and it’s great that there are many pushing the boundaries to help others understand more and more.
Thank you for sharing this excellent video with everyone. Best wishes to you and your team and your families from England
I do think there is one major problem with this though is that while you have a 'death' term a more accurate term would be 'invisible' - in other words when we would no longer be able to detect a civilization with our existing telescope technology. One reason for that could be death, another reason would just be a switch to wideband radio communication, as well as more use of cables, etc. Like, even though we use way more communication tech today then in the 1960s the amount of 'radio light' we give off from more modern technology is probably a lot lower. And TBH I don't really think that if there was another planet with earth-like technology, we wouldn't see it. All the techno signature stuff is based on the idea of civilizations way more advanced then ours (i.e. dyson spheres, etc) But we don't actually know if there will ever be a dyson sphere around the sun, for example.
Honestly at this point, it doesn't seem like we would be able to detect a planet with earth level technology with our current "observation power" (other then, ironically, chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere - which we are phasing out anyway!)
Instead we've pushed increasing amounts of energy over the entire light spectrum instead. Think all those mobile phones, the starlink network, wifi and so on and so forth. Total wireless communication tech usage has been increasing. And for the obvious reason really that it is convenient to exchange information. So Earth in some ways is actually only shifting the issue around by becoming brighter in more areas.
The only obvious resolution to me for this issue would probably have to be more in the signals becoming increasingly narrowband, so one no longer wastes energy emitting in every direction. Which I suppose is something that might happen eventually, though you'd need to have a really tight system to really go dark like that.
Still another problem will occur soon enough to then settle the matter in another way. Which is that some time this century if all goes well, we will be able to detect life on other worlds across increasingly large distances of this galaxy via telescopes instead. We'd be able to detect any unusual alterations in planet atmospheres at that point as well. Which I'm sure you realize will make an argument based on non-visible communication kind of irrelevant. You'd be able to just see them after all. Admittedly we don't 'quite' have those telescopes yet. But any one more advanced then us surely would, so they could already see us.
Which leads to the Fermi Paradox problem, where are they? Why aren't they already here to view this system in more detail up close? Yes, one could create some explanations for it. But galactic colonization or even partial colonization would certainly cause... substantial tension with the idea of only being able to find other civilizations via communication as well.
Still despite that reasoning... Well the most certain way is just to observe how things really are. So till we get those future mega telescopes, we won't know for sure.
My thoughts exactly. I just wrote a similar comment
If I remember correctly, we can't even detect earth like planets (same size, same distance to star) usually. We can detect an earth in mercury's orbit or a jupiter in earth's orbit on an alien system, but that's it.
So that we don't see them, really so far doesn't have a huge Baysian meaning.
So far, we can only really analyze one system, where we know that one planet created life as early as possible (and can't yet completely disclose that it might have happened at two other planets in the system, too, and maybe even on some moons, as well), but took a long time to develop an advanced civilisation and only for a short time so far. So, if any, that would support the probability closer to 1 than closer to 0. Once we have more observational power and we've seen maybe 3 or 4 star systems without any life (and can be sure about it), then it's time to shift to 0.
@@janekschleicher9661 What Beyesian info we have on life developing Earth supports more the idea that life on Earth developed quickly.
This is due to Earth habitability period starting to come to an end. With in the next half a billion years or so complex life and thus us, should no longer be possible to develop/exist on this planet. At least not with out technology. (The reason for this is due to the Sun getting hotter over time, and I think water loss effects)
In any case this means that we reached an advanced civ on this planet just before this world became uninhabitable. Which is a some what unlikely event. In timed events making it just in time always feels a bit unusual.
This also brings some what in question life starting early here. As apparently life needed the entire period of habitability to achieve us. A point one could turn around and say, if life hadn't started as soon as possible, we wouldn't be possible.
As for why 1 isn't really supported, it's because we don't find the remains one would expect from 1. Starting with the question by Fermi, where are they? Not as in, out there in space, but as in, why haven't they already crossed the gulf between stars and arrived here then? Why aren't we an advanced civ under the supervision of older alien civs?
But also one could ask, why don't we see colossal mega engineering around other stars then? Swarms of large space facilities that influence the light output we see from a star. Given time we would after all build up our own star system as much as possible. Just as we would cross the gulf between stars and start doing that in other star systems as well.
Of course one can create potential explanations. But they tend to be a bit adhoc, as it is hard to explain why it would apply to all civilizations with out exception. And so the galaxy with no obvious signal of alien civilization is more an indicator of 0. No major build ups, no expansions in to our Solar System, everything just looks lifeless and natural to the scales we can observe.
Still, I do agree we lack data. This is far from an absolute statement, and more one that perhaps we've been a bit to optimistic on running in to alien civilizations quickly.
@@Quickshot0 Well if we were to assume that galactic colonization could prevent new life and civilizations from forming; that would infer that any civilization coming into existence would occur before anyone finished galactic colonization.
If odds are you only on average get 10 space faring civilizations produced before the galaxy gets colonized. Then if you exist, and the galaxy isn't colonized, then you are among the 10. If the number happens to be 20, you are among the 20. If the number is five, you are among the five. If the number is one, you are it.
I think an interesting set of questions is if we were first, second, or third, how long would it takes us to see someone else? Keep in mind, light lag is quite the thing. We are 26,000 lightyears away from the center of the milky way. How far head is first place from second place technologically?
You are a boon to humanity. Thank you for seeking to ground a conversation widely polluted by people who are happy to say anything that gets them attention.
Thank you for such great content. I love that you go beyond the typical pop-sci slop and actually get into the math/statistics behind your and others’ work-which I really love learning about. Also, as this video shows, I appreciate your realistic view of the universe-such as the true difficulties of interstellar travel and the likely rareness of other Earths and intelligent life.
I can’t wait to become a member of the Cool Worlds Lab when I start my new job after graduating later this summer. Keep up the awesome work.
This is such a wonderful video, the occupied fraction vs birth-death ratio plot really blew my mind because it showed me how in principle Jayne's distribution can be arrived at, and why its either (almost) all or (almost) nothing. I also love the optimism at the very end, the idea that life could be all around us but we just don't know how to look for it (yet). Keep inspiring us!!
One thing that has always struck me is, we are looking, but we have only been looking for maybe a few hundred years in the optical, maybe 100 years using radio telescopes. This is out of 13. Billion years. Aliens would have to be relatively close, technologically advanced and be existing at roughly the same time to have overlap with ours. It’s that overlap I think will be the most important factor.
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
Of course the light from different stars is arriving at us from different time periods. It is true that of each star we have witnessed 100 years of it's life max, so what you've said is true from star to star, but we do have a wider vantage on general conditions of the galaxy at different points in time for up to a million years (the time it takes for starlight from the other side of the galaxy to reach us). Much like we can tell the biology of a Triassic by looking at the right rock layer, if there was a 100,000 year civilization that occurred about 300,000 years ago, we might see it. But, whilst not a mere 100 years of view, 1 million years is very short time compared to 10 billion years lets say. In fact it is only 0.01% of it!
@@djsarg7451No we are not, we're just not technically advanced enough to find life like ours. There's life on this planet that can live without oxygen, it may be small but it's here. There's billions, probably trillions of galaxies out there each with maybe a billion stars with multiple planets around them & you don't think at least one of those planets has life on it. That's frankly delusional.
@@markholdon8525 You are in Si-Fi land not the real world of knowledge.
We have ruled out other galaxies. We have not found another galaxy that can support life. In the Milkway, we can not find one star that will support life.
We now know that life must be carbon-based. Only carbon has the complexity for life.
So no billion stars does not change Facts.
@@djsarg7451 you are seriously stupid
As a great man once said... "Ack ak. Akk ACK-AKK!"
@@busimagen And release the doves!
Bravo 😂
Words which are as true today as they were all those years ago.
Was He the one that also said "Nuck nuck Nuck."?
Ack! Ack! Ack-ack-ack!
very rare to see a video mentioning aliens, while still grounded in reality
Very rare to have a real reality check when you're so obsessed with mainstream science.
Having been a sceptic and having seen jack shit for 30 years of unhealthy obsession in Astronomy and being slapped by two experiences that defy all logic, I find your comment showing you being behind the curve my friend. We are not supposed to say that UAP are nothing to worry about.
@@Roguescienceguy There's no curve when it comes to aliens unless you're talking scientifically, which you clearly aren't. Maybe you should stick to actual science instead of questionable experiences.
@@justbaqirr personally I am still on the fence whether they are extraterrestrial or not, but these things are here and they indeed show signs of intelligent manipulation. I mean, stopping mid flight, doing some zigzag-motion and then flying on is definitely weird. Might be some skunkworks though. Btw, quite a number of European scientists are seriously investigating the phenomenon now.
Here is the deal... UAP ARE 100% REAL! ANYONE who believes otherwise is the one NOT living in reality. All mainstream scientists saying "there is no evidence" are either A) Liars or B) Willfully ignoring the tons of evidence, radar, video, and people's personal accounts of such things.
The deal is mainstream academia is has been TOTALLY CO-OPTED by the CIA(current master)/OSS/US GOV since the Manhatten project. Those guys (who infact went on to teach a majority of high level scientists afterwards) had security clearances, knew they were real, and were told to deny the reality of them, and to ostrascize ANYONE in their fields who stepped outside that narrative. So these people... who most looked up to in their field, and respected... did their masters bidding, and attacked anyone in science who dared even question the truth of them. Then because we are social creatures others joined and out of fear never looked into it themselves out of fear of being labeled an "other". THIS is the reality of how mainstream academia/science has helped perpetuate the psyop, and cover up. They have self policed themselves willingly into a falsehood. THAT IS THE ACTUAL TRUTH!
The other truth is shown in the language of those who actually know some truths about these things. They DO NOT say "ET", bit they say NHI.... because they do not believe they are from another planet out there... maybe some are. the technology is absolutely way beyond our own. The beings in them control them in way that is almost biological... but reality is much stranger than fiction... there is a very "woo" element to these things... that you HAVE to come to grips with to try and understand. Like the reality of remote viewing... which is 100% real.. I have done it myself. Anyone who is open enough to the reality of them... can see one... but I would absolutely not advise calling one in.. because there is no telling with what you are messing with.
Personally I find this formulation of the problem far more compelling for the existance of "life", than for the prevalence of "technological civilizations".
The mere existance of life must indeed be either everywhere or almost nowhere as it is fundamentally a question of the likelihood of chemistry turning into a system of self-replication (similar to the water in the glass flasks analogy and I lean heavily towards "everywhere")
However, when it comes to technological civilizations I have always thought the brief "phase transition" to a state where the entire galaxy is covered is flawed. I can imagine several factors that could either slow the expansion or halt it at a value substantially lower than 100%, challenging that assumption and create large regions with minimally visible tech civilizatiions including: Ideology, the usefulness of planets with life for science, Internal and external conflict and disagreements between civilizations, a reasonably high probability of death or decline for civs etc.
Additionally, even if the curve does apply, the relative youth of the universe compared to its lifespan increases the liklihood we are in the ascending part of the curve, especially if the rate of civilizational expansion is somewhat slower than some currently beleive.
I think the "almost nowhere" for the technological level of intelligent life, because it almost didn't happen on earth. Earth has had life for like 4 billion years, but we only have about 800 million years before the oceans boil off. In fact the earth was much more hospitable to life 100 million years ago with much higher oxygen concentrations, so huge animals could live then that couldn't live today. We also know that longer-lived stars like red dwarfs would likely blow the atmospheres off planets close enough to have life, and huge bright stars don't last very long - so really even with a sunlike star the odds of developing intelligent life would be low. (but, maybe in the future you could have planets around white dwarfs that would last for a very, very long time)
In your thinking how much the factors you mentioned (ideology, usefulness, etc.*) would affect the phase transition speed? 10x? 100x? Still not enough I think**. Also, part of your rationale is covered by the birth/death ratio.
My intuition is that to make a dent in the fine tuning argument by "widening" the "phase transition" time, we should show that the suggested reasons have a non-linear impact, i.e. they don't just put a coefficient in front of the equation. For example, the larger the perimeter of the empire, the more potentially useful planets are in your reach, so this actually works against your argument. Assume empire radius r. Number of cool planets to explore grows with ~r^2. Even if on average, cool planets are only 10%, this is a constant coefficient in front of a quadratic equation. Internal conflicts would indeed grow with the volume of your empire ~r^3, which might be useful to focus on. Meeting other civs would probably be related to the perimeter of your empire r^2, not its volume. Etc. etc.***
I agree we're in the ascending part of the curve, but that doesn't tell us much. We might be the first, or to be more precise the only one currently spacefaring/doing the expanding. I think this is what the fine tuning argument tells us.
* "disagreements with other civs" works against your argument
** remember the simulations were done with current technology in mind, I think we can improve our engines considerably up to a fraction of c.
*** another cool idea: I read "Accelerando" lately and there, the constraint on civilization growth was network bandwidth/latency, which caused members of a civilization to prefer being near each other, resulting in matrioshka-brain civilizations. Bandwidth would be subject to inverse square law, so dampens with 1/r^2
@@kosairox Your comment is well written and shows that you have a scientific way of thinking.
@@kosairox Wouldn't phase transition be slowed depending on the percentage of stars with habitable planets? (Or a planet useable for a self-replicating probe to visit and create more of itself) This is basically an exponential growth curve, right? The closer the useful systems are, the quicker the probe gets there, and the quicker more probes are made, etc, etc.
Would this not be able to slow the transition to a more believable level? Like, say the phase transition takes 1 billion years instead of less than 10 million years, and with the universe being 13.6 billion years old, then it wouldnt be too improbable to currently be in that transition - right?
@@extragoogleaccount6061 One can come up with many reasons why the phase transition would be slower.
If we reduce the number of habitable planets by a factor of 100, would that increase the galactic conquest time from 10 million years 100-fold to 1 billion yeras? I don't think so.
For the sake of argument, if you're a self-replacting probe you have less habitable planets to choose as your next "destination", but they're just homogenuously as distant from you. Say, instead of 1000 planets which are 10 ly from you in random directions, you have 10 planets which are 10 ly from you in random directions. I think volume-wise, it doesn't make much difference then. In fact, less planets means less paths to choose from means the expansion (volume-wise) would be faster. It also means you need to produce less probes, though I think the time required to produce probes doesn't matter anyways because it's much shorter (years?) compared to travel time.
The "benefit" of having less habitable planets is that a civ is harder to detect, but if we assume that, say, within 10 ly it's practically guaranteed that a detection is successful, it doesn't make much difference. I think we need to consider average distance between habitable planets and distance of detecting a civilization. If distance between habitable planets is smaller than distance of detection, then it is as I said. Otherwise, if distance between habitalbe planets is greater than distance of detection, your argument could work. Though this argument could be applied to bolster the "aliens are everywhere we're just not listening hard enough" scenario just as well, not only to attack the phase transition fine tuning argument.
To explore this further one could come up with a maths model, maybe a python simulation, and test for what parameter values would the number of habitable planets benefit or harm the hypothesis? Then compare with real-life detection range estimates and real-life habitability estimates.
If only more teacher has that next level fascination/dedication to the true pursuit of science. The calculations must describe the world/universe as closely as possible to the field data. BRAVO!
Nice. Nice to witness science advancing in front of my eyes and being able to understand a small fraction of it. Your reworking of the Drake equation is pretty cool stuff. I don't get bummed-out over the very low probabilities of there being actual alien life forms out there eventhough I'm a big sci-fi fan. I like the scientific approach and not to see with only our emotions. I actually now lean a little more towards there being other life out there but I think of the density of it in the infinity of the universe would leave a lot of distance between occurrences.
While our observations can clearly rule out every planet having a technological civilization, it's still entirely possible that every suitable planet has life. The Earth could very well be representative of this; it has had life for almost its entire history, while only having a civilization for a very brief moment. In other words, maybe life is extremely common, and civilizations do try to emerge very frequently, but they are so short-lived that no one ever lives long enough on astronomical timescales.
While that's possible we just have no idea what the likelihood of any life forming on a planet is. It can't be "that high" because we've seen a ton of planets that are very definitely not suitable for life and one (maybe a few if you count the moons with water oceans) that could possibly support life.
@@solsystem1342 we have no idea is the correct answer which is why I absolutely hate videos like this who reduce the matter to a probability function.
There's a fallacy in this assumption. At least if we're talking about higher life forms. It's not enough for Earth to just be in the goldielocks zone of our solar system. There are factors like our Sun being the perfect size (there is no goldielocks zone around a red dwarf, for example, despite how much sci-fi bros would like it to be. Tidal locking is no joke), us having a ginormous moon and Jupiter to act as a cosmic vacuum cleaner for the inner solar system. There are many more factors which would take too long to list them all here, but let's just say we hit a Royal Flush. Are there going to be other planets out there in the Universe that also hit a Royal Flush? Most certainly. But it's not very common and the chances that it happened in our cosmic neighborhood are slim, to say the least. So in that sense we're very much alone out there and we won't be communicating with other intelligent life in the Universe as in Star Trek. That's a pipe dream.
@@veganbutcherhackepeter yes, this is why I wrote "suitable" planets
@@veganbutcherhackepeter Well, people hit Royal Flushes every day of the week in Vegas, and elsewhere. Not me, at least not yet, but somebody has and will.
You have found some sort of Legendary Blackboard. Congratulations.
Cool worlds always seems to make my day better! Because I'll stop what I'm doing no matter what it is and watch
I'm surprised how we expect E.T.s to be just enormously scaled up version of our tech, when in fact what we already do is shrinking out tech in size, not making it larger. Shrinking dye sizes, quantum computations, increasing power efficiency, DNA engineering. All that means E.T.s probably operate on the scale level of atoms and relying on quantum effects for communication, not at the level of stars, Dyson spheres and communication in radiowaves.
Greats analysis, great video. Well done.
👊
The Drake equation was a conversation starter. We owe a lot to Frank Drake for getting us started down the path of thinking about this problem in a more cleared-headed way.
Hmm, I disagree.
I think it was a huge diversion.
At the end, it had no predictive value.
It sounds like math. It sounds like science. But it's actually not.
@@w0mblemania Bingo
Well, you could say that Fermi was just starting a conversation with his colleagues by posing a simple question. We can see where that went.
@@christopherdaffron8115 He split the atom by accident and didn’t even know it for 5 years until someone else told him. He was just experimenting. That’s what scientists do. Others started the conversation. Should we not have conversations because something bad might happen? I can’t see any purpose to what you wrote.
@@ScentlessSun Here is the point. Read Carefully! Drake's equation has taken on more purpose than Drake had intended. The Fermi Paradox (I'm sure you have heard of it) has taken on more purpose than Fermi had intended. You see the purpose of what I wrote now?
If you think that’s been misused, remember Claude Shannon himself even came out and said “come on everyone stop using my theories to say things they don’t say”. While I firmly believe there is other intelligent life in the universe, I feel the insane distances involved, along with the universe still expanding, means we’ll never meet each other.
Where never = not in my lifetime?
@@AndrewBlucher I think ever sadly. I think by the time a civilization might get close to some kind of FTL technology, they’ll probably end up offing themselves or their society will decline long before they get there.
@@AndrewBlucher No, never meaning its actual meaning of never.
We handwave the ability to travel between the stars far too easily. It is insanely difficult, assuming anyone even tries in the first place. We have done it only twice and our first attempt isnt even out of the Solar System by some metrics.
If we want to live in a fantasy, than sure, lets talk about all the alien civilizations that may or may not exist out there, but if we want to live in reality, we need to be honest about the actual physical limitations the universe imposes on us. They are numerous and oppressive and - as far as we have observed - without exception (a consequence of a sample of 1).
@@felixfeliciano7011 Ah, never ever :-)
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
I wrote a scholarly paper on exobiology, reviewing all available pertinent literature, as a college freshman in 1974. The primary conclusion is the same as yours. There is no lower limit to the birth rate. There is no data at all on the death rate, as we ourselves could hit technological death at any time. Sagan realized this in the 1975-1977 range, and proposed nuclear winter as a possible mechanism.
As an actuary, there are certain further maths that are relevant to the equations. One relates to ruin theory, and in this case focuses on the high slope part of the curve, as that is the part of the curve that is humanly 'interesting'. The most interesting part of the curve, to me, is how many planetary and stellar systems WE (earth) occupy in humanity's future. This includes augmented humanity. If that number is significantly more than one, next consider death contagion. It's possible that if life on mother Earth goes extinct, that lands a crushing (psychological or economic) blow to the newer worlds.It's also possible that the explorers won't really worry about life on Earth once takeoff point is achieved.
Finally, it's possible that one or more greater intelligences exist, either aiding or hindering our potential to expand beyond this solar system. It's also possible that advances in physics/propulsion/life span will make expansion trivial. Or, that some combination of human idiocy kills 90%+ of humanity, returning humanity to the brutish and short phase, temporarily or permanently. None of these have any fine mathematical predictive power, save the the chances for each of the listed outcomes appears to be greater than zero.
0:43 i really really thought you were gonna say it was supported by leaonardo decaprio
A bodhisattva of science.
You teach us how to think.
And you accomplish this in the format of playfully expanding our imagination.
The most pleasant of arts.
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." - Douglas Noel Adams
Given an infinite number of planets, If only one of two planets is inhabited, there is still a infinite number of inhabited planets.
The same if one in a hundred, thousand, million, trillion, etc
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
@@alfaeco15 yeah this guy sounds like he doesn't know much math lol
If there are an infinite number of planets, it would then follow that there are also an infinite number of inhabited planets, regardless of how unlikely it may be. They would simply be "different" infinities in that inhabited planets are less common
My calculus professor explained this exact idea to me but with decimals and rational numbers. No wonder the guy that said this was an author and not a mathematician lol
That was a long way to write "I can't grasp infinity".
@@djsarg7451that is a bold statement. There are 2000 trilion galaxys with each 100 bilion stars. If we are alone then someone God ? wasted a lot of space
Do we not definitionally live in the expansion phase of a civilisation, our own? It may be a very brief window but here we are.
The issue I have with the ‘statistically unlikely’ approach is that everything at play here is statistically unlikely.
The idea that something which is demonstrably possible has happened exactly once is… a little silly to me.
I forget the name of the fallacy, but you've fallen victim to it.
Just because something can happen once, doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen again in a limited scenario.
In this case, the limits are our galaxy and the current age of the universe. (There are actually many more limits, but let's go with this for the sake of simplicity.)
For example, let's say that the odds of any independent life form evolving to radio-transmission levels, within our galaxy, within our epoch, are 1 in 1 quintillion.
If that's true, and we are that happy 1 in 1 quintillion, it would be entirely unreasonable to expect to see any signs of other life at all.
i.e. just because we are here, doesn't change the odds, except to say "it's possible".
>>Do we not definitionally live in the expansion phase of a civilisation, our own? It may be a very brief window but here we are.
@@simontmnRome did not decline it just morphed into a different kind of power. All 'civilisations' as we know them did not cease - they became the stepping stones to the so called civilisation we have now.
What corresponds to what we see? A universe in which tech civilizations are so rare as to be invisible to us. This could change tomorrow with a verifiable alien transmission but like Sagan I have to go with withholding belief until there is evidence.
@@w0mblemaniaso...you are saying that life can't exist outside of the milky way and can only exist in under a epoch. yeah no
and where are you getting these numbers from. we don't know how common life is yet
It's pretty simple, if our solar system can support advanced life forms like ourselves than it absolutely is common across the universe. I mean life thrives in some of the most inhospitable places on our planet meaning life thriving on planets made of stuff we don't have on our planet is a possibility. The idea we are some sort of a one a in a 750 trillion lucky planet is beyond ridiculous. Given the unbelievable time frames we are talking about, the extreme difficulty in navigating the universe just outside of your own solar system, communication with other life forms is also extraordinarily difficult again due to the size of the universe and a myriad of other issues, it is entirely plausible for extremely advanced civilizations to die out before they can ever venture outside of their own solar systems.
Possible objection, curious what you think about it:
If the anthropic principle explains finetuning (why the universe and laws of physics appear to be finetuned so they can support life) because we live in a multiverse, then you would expect the birth/death ratio to be solely determined by the distribution of universes that can support life (weighted by how common life is in that universe). This distribution wouldn't necessarily display Jaynes' effect.
One might reason that as the birth/death ratio goes up, the probability of a universe being this finetuned might exponentially decay. With the B/D ratio scaling (less than!) linearly with the occupation fraction/amount of observers + higher B/D ratio worlds being exponentially more unlikely, one could argue most observers are expected to be in low B/D ratio worlds. Does this make sense, or am I missing something?
I was involved in the seti@home project, and the attitude there wasn't that anyone really expected to find a signal, but that we should be looking, as a fairly active computer hobbyist, I used seti packets as a performance benchmark for years, just for the giggle value. I clearly remember the swell of... pride in building a new hotrod machine, and see the packet time drop from 10 hours to 2.5.
But what if we add +1 to the equation? We already know of one, supposedly, intelligent civilisation. The star system we know best brings us off the zero mark. Love your work!
I agree. That would be smooth! (computational linguists will understand 😂)
It's not a fine tuning problem, it goes much deeper than that. It's that loads of humans, earn loads of money, building equipment that only humans understand to search for how humans on other planets would behave. When we cannot see them out there using TV's, cell phones etc. then we default to either - we are alone or we are the only intelligent one's.
The fundamental question is how would a species far ahead of us communicate. Even we know that the frequency spectrum has its disadvantages, maybe they have over come this and are thus unseen by us.
You touched on a very important point. People have a natural bias when investigating alien life, we tend to think they are like us. They could be very different. Have you ever considered that one alien might have an IQ of 1000, but still be in a society that uses stones and bows? Simply because for some odd reason they didn't evolve the tech, even though they have an IQ of 1000.
@@User-jr7vf they most likely live underwater too, so technological civilization may be impossible for them entirely
We tend to overthink things because we can only see things from our own perspective. Also we only see things that are in our own dimension and viewpoint, and that we are able to comprehend, classical monkey through a keyhole. Our brains might not be able to process all the information that is coming our way. We are like eagerly awaiting puppies waiting for alien communications, but seriously though when we can’t even understand or comprehend other earth animals communication that are highly intelligent such as dolphins or whales, what chance do we have of being able to understand aliens?
Need to face facts- it's just us and a few scraps of lichens out there in the observable universe. Cool Worlds has the intellectual courage to take on the Eerie Silence and provide a solid statistical answer for it but one no one will like. We need to keep searching, but don't expect to find Dyson-sphere-builders or angelic alien super-minds- it's just not in the cards.
To me, the idea that we are all alone in this entire Universe is not terrifying but very depressing.
we are the cthulu
I don’t know, to me it’s very comforting, the fact that we can carve our own destiny and the fact that we’re not truly alone since we have each other
I think there is something beautiful about the universe being dead
Thank you for this video. It captivated me and moved me to revisit this premise.
Something that this does for me, as a SETI optimist, is that, even if we are on the bottom plateau of your equation, it implies that eventually, humanity may be able to "watch" the galaxy/universe populate. To me, this doesn't prove than aliens *can't* exist, so much as it proves that they don't exist *yet*.
And to me, that is incredibly promising.
I've come to understand recently just how many events led up to us and how many more are necessary to become a spacefaring civilisation, which alone is quite the feat. No wonder we can't see anyone.
In terms of adding new perspective to the 'where is everybody' issue, this seems like a real breakthrough in logic that feels like very solid ground to make an informed conclusion that the universe is indeed probably empty at this point in time.
In terms of inspiration I don't find this nearly as depressing as it's presented though. To me, this seems like a grand opportunity to be the spark at the beginning of that upward curve. It's interesting to me that humans want to see themselves as so unremarkable that we need to find some other civilazation to confirm we're just random lifeforms on a rock. Perhaps so we can leave the burden of exploration to someone else...so we can be handed the knowledge about the nature of existence without us having to do the unfathomable work of having to figure it out ourselves over the next few eons. Maybe we're missing the cosmic joke that we are still so very special and our generation has the unique position of being at the very start of that civilization that will inevitably colonize every star in the universe. Maybe our desire to know everything is just so much bigger than the small fraction of time we're allotted to exist will allow. It's a bit like getting to the mountain peak to see another infinite number of mountains in front of you....but you're the only one there to climb them and that still means something. Pretty cool to me!
Love this channel, thanks for doing what you do and doing the real work to help us all wonder.
The problem with this equation is thinking of humans as one single civilization inhabiting our planet. There are human civilizations that have come and gone and are now extinct. Many of them. All of human kind did not experience the industrial revolution, only certain civilizations made it to industrialization and computerization among the many inhabiting the planet. We still have hunter gatherer people inhabiting the planet with rocket launching people. Calling all of that one human civilization is too simple and can't represent a value of 1 in the equation. If there are aliens, it's safe to assume that not every alien has a space ship or the resources to travel the stars. They may have a shadow government controlling all the best technology too, who knows.
It is safe to say that if not for western/european civilization, most humans would still be living in medieval age (China, Japan, Middle East) and the rest would be living in bronze age or less, like Africans, Oceania and native americans..
So 1 out of 100 humans civilizations made it to the industrial revolution (and took others with them later)
If europeans went extinc in 1200 somehow by plague, there would be no tech signals coming from earth
You are right, but is it relevant? The way I look at it the answer to the question whether there is a civilization on a planet is a binary one. There is a population that meets the criteria for civilization or there is not. Where you draw the line is of course rather subjective
@@silentwilly2983 Agreed. Throwing in some more discussion, sure there’s some societies more technologically advanced than others, but a neolithic civilisation is not relevant to the search for alien life via current technological means.
The civilizations may have failed but the human species is one continuous line of evolution.
Survival of the fittest.
we also have many animals that arguably could be considered civilized, whales have incredibly complex language, but clearly are physically incapable of building tech and have no need for a home, Crows can use tools and communicate, even teach their young about individual humans
I really appreciate what you and the team create. Thank you so much!
Timing is everything as usual.
Thanks for another thoughtful video. But I have some doubt about some of the reasonings here.
First of all, you are using a logarithm scale for lambda_bd, which makes the intermediate region appear narrow. In other words, you are assuming that the log of lambda_bd follows more or less a uniform distribution. I don’t see any justification for that.
Secondly, it is far from certain our galaxy has reached the equilibrium . It could well be that lambda_bd is quite large but we are still in the early innings of civilization emergence. In other words, both terms are tiny but the ratio is large. We are turning on the lights in the galaxy slowly but steadily. I remember you have a video hypothesize that we might be the early ones.
Finally, even if all your assumptions were true, as lambda_bd gets smaller, the occupancy ratio is really close to lambda_bd itself, and not zero. It may be small but given the number of stars in the galaxy the total civilizations can still be large. There is no need to despair.
0:12 I see Michio in the thumbnail, I click away. This goes back. Way back. About 35 years. A steady drip, drip, drip.
CIVILIZATION BLINK RATE
Q: Hypothetically, if Moore's Law continues indefinitely, then how many years before a silicon computer must become an optical computer, then subatomic computer, and then for superintelligence to operate most efficiently the computer must be made of neutron star or quark star material? How many years for the shrinking CPU to become so miniaturized that it becomes identical to a primordial black hole? How many years does the math dictate when that would be necessary? Just as a mathematical exercise.
Now, if all superintelligent alien civilizations followed Moore's Law in this way, and entire planets and solar systems were converted into pure CPU's, would that 500?-year progression be detectable from Earth, merely a quick blink at galactic time scales?
Exponential growth has a way of growing exponentially. Until the limits of the physical substrates of intelligence, the Planck-scale circuitry.
Would trillions of such quark-plasma CPU's all over the galaxy behave like dark matter?
High energy condensed matter physics would have to structure the sun's material into logic gates, and then AI could run there. Maybe that's where all the ET's went to live, or at least their AI avatars did.
Moore's Law isn't holding up though even here. It is still relevant but the timeframe for doubling of processors isn't what was stated. Many think we have already reached the physical limitations for silicon-based processors. If the limit hasn't been reached or there is no limit, then eventually any civilization wishing to increase or maintain the rate would have to spend more and more of its resources to the point that everything they have would be required.
@@gishjalmr5628 That's why better substrates than silicon are being developed, even down to the spintronics or optical computing level, and why several trillion dollars are to be spent just on manufacturing the AI chips. They are so incredibly valuable that every possible unit of computing is being maximized, everything humanly possible for civilization to create greater AI, with whatever materials and energy sources are available.
Jensen Huang (CEO of NVidia) and Sam Altman (CEO of OpenAI) have basically said so, repeatedly.
We are literally ... giving it our all.
@@gishjalmr5628 it's as if when vacuum tubes were used in computers they would think that they couldn't make computers any smaller
What a fabulous new approach to considering the Drake Equation--and, of course, the Fermi Paradox. Dr. Kipping breaks new ground--again. I'm so proud to support this channel.
My problem with the Drake and Fermi challenges has been that few assessments so far have integrated an astrophysical conclusion with the input of abiogenesis, biology, evolution, paleontology, anthropology, history and the philosophy of civilizations and technology. If we continue spending a lot of time and money on the search for alien life forms in the universe, let alone intelligent life, a confident assessment should absolutely recruit the regard of those other disciplines. No? I say that as someone who maintains a personal list of all the implausible turns of fortune that permitted life on Earth to get this far. It's a long and daunting list.
If ever such a grand, integrated effort to answer the alien life dilemma gathers together multiple fields of study, I sure hope David Kipping is in that room.
This is actually a good example of why not to oversimplify things, and why some of the factors in the Drake Equation are important. Life, intelligent life, technological life, and detectable technological life are all different things, and not does not necessarily follow the previous one.
Another important factor, is that, despite our best efforts so far, we are just barely scratching the barest surface of detection efforts, and at present even a nearby civilization at a technological level comparable to our own would be very difficult to detect. We simply lack the ability to conduct proper surveys so far, and as a result we lack the data to make predictions that fall much out of the philosophy side of things rather than actually standing firmly in the science side of things.
Taking the beaker analogy, what if a random, unknown number of the beakers are empty. Then, no, compound x won't dissolve. If you don't know how many beakers are empty, then instead of close to 0 or 100%, we should expect either close to 0 or 50%. Anything that would make a planet permanently uninhabitable would be like an empty beaker. And that brings some of the vagaries and problems with the Drake equation back into the mix.
Exactly. The Kipping formulation is useful but assumes homogeneity of the population. The answer could be that we are at the “near 100 percent” end of the set of X-type stars with Y-type planets in the Z-band of their lifetimes…a number as mysterious as it ever was.
@@HonorableBoor I still think their model assumes homogeneity *at every scale* of unit choice or size (LY^3 or planets or whatever). At smaller scales homogeneity shrinks and the model’s power decreases. The beakers are not comparable. At larger scales homogeneity among cells increases, which does make this model interesting but begins to limit its application to a galaxy rife with regional features. This homogeneity/scalability problem is not unique to what they’re trying to do - it’s inherent in any survey sample estimate and I suspect trying to apply this model to a heterogeneous galaxy (uninhabitable center, spiral arms, interstellar dense cloud regions) would be informative but challenged as you run out of degrees of freedom…in other words, there would so many 0-100 spectra to multiple against each other you’d be drifting back to Fermi. [I say all this having not read the paper. Mea culpa.]
Why are we just assuming we will know a technological civilization when we are looking at one/many? Think, civilization is to our knowledge 5500-6k years old with sumeria. Maybe some slightly older cooperation of various levels we are just now discovering. Our current capabilities would look like inconceivable god magic to people just 500 years ago nevermind 5000 or 50,000 or to whatever mammal ancestor was around at 50 million years. These timescales for how far in the past we would have to go for our ancestors to think we are all gods is so insignificant in earths history let alone the universes-why would we ever assume we would recognize another form of life/technology even while looking right at it with everything we’ve got? the assumption should realistically be we would not know what we were looking at. Thanks to awesome channels like yours I am vividly in awe of just how much we know we don’t know when we look up (nevermind what we don’t know that we don’t know!) so I’d say there’s still airtight logic in being optimistic!
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
@@djsarg7451 most of that is wrong or at best a half truth which you take the worst of all possible assumptions on, i dont want to be rude but im not spending the time to go through one by one thats just too unreasonable, and absolutely none of it confronts my actual point. humans from 500 years ago would not recognize radio waves or nuclear reactors or certain biosignatures in the atmosphere or cell signals etc as signs of life, they could not fathom getting to space or viewing/creating digital memories or talking to someone on the other side of the world instantly and would view us all as gods. those are humans-the literal exact same as us evolved on the same planet just 500 years apart. the idea that we would readily recognize life on a different planet when looking at it when it likely (but not guaranteed) evolved differently and is likely far more than just those 500 years apart is just silly. life there could be structured in a way that we could never even fathom, it could be structured in a way that our human form with eyes and ears and our tools can simply never observe even if we could fathom it. it could be silica based, it could be plasma based, it could be-literally-anything.
"Only a Sith deals in Absolutes" - or more seriously - I am doubtful of that "all or nothing" idea. It would have to be expanded really - it would also imply that basically if you have life on a planet at all, it either almost never develops into multicellular life or it almost always does. It either almost always develops a civilization or it almost never does. And then you end up with a galaxy that either has civilizations and life on almost all planets or on almost none - and at the same time it means that it would be improbable to have life without civilization on any other planet. And I think that makes it more likely that we dont deal in absolutes but that basically something similar to the Drake equation makes sense - to describe each of the features of technological life separately because it could be something in between.
I disagree with the conclusion that F has to be very small or large with a high probability in the steady state model that was presented.
The reason it seems that way is because the plot shown in 10:30 is logaritmic, not linear. Nothing wrong with log-plots, but they don't really reveal how "many" numbers lie in a certain interval. What I mean by this is that the "size" of the set A = [ 0 = 10^-∞, 10^-6] is 10^-6 but the "size" of the set B = [0.2 ≈ 10^0, 0.8 ≈ 10^0] is about 1, about a million times larger than B. So, the case that λ_(bd) has a really high negative exponent is not more likely than it having an exponent that is close to 0.
If the explanation above seems difficult to understand, just take the function x / (1 + x) and make a linear i.e. a normal plot of it in the range of [0, ∞]. You will see that it covers all ranges of F from 0 to 1 pretty uniformly in x and then asymptotically approaching 1. There is no spike, i.e. it does not look like a step function, which it would need to look like if you wanted to reach the same conclusion as was presented in the video.
I can agree with the fact that λ_(bd) is probably not large since F is probably not close to 1. However, that does not really tell anything how small F is as was reasoned above. It could be 0.5 for all we know.
DISCLAIMER:
I do actually agree with the conclusion if it can be shown that λ_(bd) is uniformly distributed in the log interval, shown in 10:30. However, the reasoning of why that would be the case was not shown in the video. This would be a fact that would really warrant an explanation since the whole argument of this video is based on that premise. I don't really understand why λ_(bd) should be log-distributed and I think normal uniform distribution would be more reasonable. However, someone that has read this subject more thorougly than me can explain why this is the case.
It’s a subtle point and one I didn’t justify in detail in the video for the sake of brevity. If you have a scale parameter (such as this one) that is bound between two positive real numbers, then the reference prior (also known as the Jeffreys prior) is a lot-uniform distribution. This is essentially the prior that is most agnostic, least informative - imposes the minimal possible bias or preference into the analysis. It’s rigorously found by computing the Fisher information matrix and then evaluating the determinant of said matrix. A normal distribution would be much more informative, since it has a defined mean value. That’s appropriate for a measurement of something, but not for a positive real scalar like this.
@@CoolWorldsLab Wow, I did not expect a reply straight from you! I am honored!
The subject I wrote in the question above actually started to intrique me somewhat and I took some time to read your paper and about prior distributions. It has been a while since I studied bayesian statistics and hence I have been looking for some good reference material for this subject. Do you have some in mind, if I may ask?
Again, thanks for replying!
Thank you David. Great video!
Amazing research and great video as always. A couple thoughts; If Galileo could glimpse the International Space Station with his telescope-a revolutionary technology in his own time-he wouldn’t have the resolution to even guess at what he saw. He would only see a bright moving point in the sky. The difference in our level of technology from Galileo’s time is impressive, but it might pale in comparison to the difference in technology between a Kardashev 0.7 civilization and a Level 3 civilization.
An alien civilization capable of colonizing the galaxy would possess exotic technology that we may not have even dreamed of yet. I’ve always thought it presumptive to assume that we would be able to identify their presence at this point in our development. If we assume there’s some merit to this argument, this makes it difficult to dismiss the high-occupation scenario.
We still wouldn’t have a clue where we were on the curve unless we improbably spot another sub 1 civilization. And then we would have an n of 2.
We get a bit ahead of ourselves speculating about civilizations on the Kardeshev scale when we have yet to detect a single extraterrestrial microbe.
If the galaxy was teeming with life I believe we'd have accidentally happened upon it by now. If there is intelligent life out there, I believe we are on the small upswing of Kipping's graph and we are above average on the timeline of evolution.
assume for a second that not everyone is lying about their stories of close encounters or alien abductions. then imagine being one of those people and watching this video of a guy absolutely convinced that earth has never been visited by a UFO let alone an actual alien entity. I can understand the hesitancy to buy into the drake equation I don't but its nowhere near as ridiculous as the Fermi paradox I can assure you.
They may not be lying. Just detached from reality
You hit the nail on the head at the end, "Maybe were looking in the wrong place.". This is my conclusion as radio waves are not everything, we know they are too slow for communication across star systems and solar systems. The must be a something else, in Statrek they called it subspace, it could be anything we just dont know yet.
and perhaps nobody builds dyson spheres because they have some breakthrough in physics that allows them to have unimaginable power generation on a much smaller scale. need more data.
@@melangearrakis You don't need a Dyson sphere when you can tap into the potential electrical energy of the universe. Imagine the electrical energy that's created from the magnetic fields of stars and planets which all rotate. It's unimaginable but totally possible within the laws of physics.
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
@@djsarg7451 lolol u keep commenting on this r u okay? sounds like ur the one who’s alone
Thank you, Dr. Kipping, and the Cool Worlds team for this video. One of the things I appreciate most about your channel is your willingness to share perspectives that challenge the prevailing cultural narratives.
While science must evolve with new information and synthesize data into new hypotheses, cultural shifts aren't typically grounded in evidence. Because of this, I believe it's a mistake for science to be swayed by cultural trends.
I have some questions about this: As far as I've understood from watching the video and reading the paper, you assume that lambda is distributed log-uniformly between some lambda_min and lambda_max. You then calculate the probability distribution for the occupation fraction F using that assumed prior. My remarks are:
1. You can pretty much choose arbitrarily low values for lambda_min. Doesn't this choice already presuppose the conclusion when choosing very small values of lambda_min, like 10^(-10^10)? I can't really see what prior distribution the choice of that lambda_min itself should follow.
2. In your paper i haven't found any calculation for the expected value of F using this prior. I find it hard to come to any conclusions about the observations (like you do) without seeing directly which impact assumptions about lambda_min/max have to . So I (tried to) did it myself:
I took your prior function Pr(F) dF and integrated \int_{F_min}^{F_max} F Pr(F) dF. I conservatively chose F_max = 10^-3, because values much higher are ruled out by observations. Note, that this also rules out even the "Zone 1" in your diagram. This gives:
For lambda_min = 10^-10: F = 6e-5
For lambda_min = 10^-30: F = 1e-5
For lambda_min = 10^-100: F = 5e-6
For lambda_min = 10^-1000: F = 4e-7
Considering that there are surveys like GAIA looking at about 10^9 objects, I think your calculations are not neccesarily a cause for despair, even for very small values of lambda_min. I would be very interested in what you think about this.
PS: The expactation value for F is ( ln(lambda_max+1) - ln(lambda_min+1) ) / ( ln(lambda_max) - ln(lambda_min) ), approximately lambda_max / ( ln(lambda_max) - ln(lambda_min) ) for small values of lambda_max.
"Which is inconsistent with "our observations" of the galaxy." But we haven't observed the galaxy.
My opinion: We are still too early in our Universe to see multiple civilizations to exist at the same period of time and at locations where contact is possible.. This would be a VERY lucky event so early in the universe considering intelligent life here took 1/3 of the Universe's age to appear... If another civilzation is alive right now, chances are they are more than 1 million light years away.. Also, 4 billions years of stability must be a very rare occasion in our early universe... People underestimate the hostility of the universe, the distances involved and how intelligent life must be a glimpse in astronomic terms
We have studied 20 million stars, and not one can support life as they are ALL too unstable, we are alone. The Sun is the only stable star. Of the 4,100 solar systems studied, not one looks like our solar system, able to support life. Almost all the 4,100 solar systems studied have Hot Jupiters. In normal planetary systems giant planets form beyond snow line and then migrated towards the star. A small percentage of giant planets migrate far from the star. In both types of migrations, any rocky planet like an earth is lost in these planetary migrations. Most stars do not have planets. Many stars are in bi-star systems, thus no earth-type planets. Have not found another galaxy that can support life. Must have stable arms for life. Thus we are alone.
The odds are currently at 1 to 20 million. Only a fool would say the odds will be better next year. 10 years ago this was 1 to 1 million and back then people were saying that is only 1 million. Finding more stars will not change the odds, it will be soon, 1 to 30 million and on and on. The normal is Hot Jupiters and no earth and unstable stars. The Sun's energy output changes less than 0.1 percent. All other stars start at 3 % and go up. So we are alone.
1)We have found no other Galaxy that can support life. Life needs a barred spiral galaxy with stable arms.
2) In that stable barred spiral galaxy, only stars in the Galactic habitable zone can have life, too close to the center (where most stars are) have too much radiation. Too far from the center and there are no rocky planets, due to the lack of heavy elements.
2) As already stated, half of the stars are in bi-star systems, thus no life.
3) Normal, is solar systems with Hot Jupiters, no life.
Why have we not found a stable star like the Sun?
The appeal to billions or even a trillion stars does not add any proof of life outside of the solar system.
Only a solitary, second generation, G2V star, 4.6 Billion years old with the correct metallicity (0.0122 [high metallicity]) and correct temperature (5,772 K) are stable enough to support complex life.
Star must be the correct distance from center of a stable Spiral galaxy (too close too much radiation, too far no rocky planets) and on and on. The planet must be not too large or too small with long lasting magnetic field. Also not too much sulfur or water.
Just above and below puts the number of other star-solar systems with life at none. (no other stable Spiral galaxy has been found)
The Sun is a G2V star. Only 0.7% of stars are G2V.
Only half of the G2V stars are solitary.
Age: G2V stars age from 0 to 10 Billion, Sun is 4.6 Billion, must be 4.6.
Metallicity: Can range, -4 to +1, need, must be (0.0122 , ± 0.05)
G2V Temperature: Can be from 5,860K to 5,720 K, must be 5,772 K
And on and on.
We are alone.
Jumping from flasks that are almost identical to planets that have been shown to be extremely varied is a huge leap!
Consider a more relevant flask example. Take a bunch of flasks with random mixtures of 20 different chemicals and ask how many will dissolve your additive. Even if you know what the 20 chemicals are, you are still going to be hard pressed to make an accurate guess.
I am going to try to watch more of this. But it really puts me off seeing such a wild non-sequitor.
Hello David, I landed here after watching your interview with Lex Fridman, I was really caught by the accuracy with which you present your thoughts 👏
About this video, really appreciate how you (and others) were able to build a reasonig and get conclusions on such precarious grounds (the little we know) 👏
Now my question: when you say "if lambda BD was really high we should see technological signature everywhere around us"... perhaps it's me but I'm missing the consideration of how the technological age could be incredibly ephemeral, meaning life could be everywhere and lasts millions/billions of years but when the phase transition to technology happens.. it's an instant in cosmological scale.
I like to think to civilizations as lighting bolts, even in a stormy night full of bolts and thinders each one lasts few milliseconds and if you were a lighting and you looked around during those milliseconds...you probably wouldn't see any other lighting, and you would ask yourself "Really?! am I alone?!"
Thank you very much for all your top quality contents 💙
I read the title as "Alien Optometrists" and was like "huh, never seen an alien wear glasses"
I hate those misleading thumbnails featuring Michio Kaki on other channels
Michio doesn't help with all his sensationalism and religious language.
@@twonumber22 his language is good at deradicalizing anti-science fundamentalists but imo doesnt push ya much once youre able to get into science as a more critical thinker
Yes, based on all the available information and after crunching some numbers I conclude that our existence is statistically improbably, so much so that I tend to regard all the actual people I regularly encounter day to day as little more than a curious and highly eccentric artifact of floating point arithmetic imprecision; a continuously growing cumulative error.
That was my takeaway, that we can't possibly exist.
This increases even further the Copernicus Paradox. Why we are in a planet where technology can be develop when practically all habitable planets technology development is impossible?
Great take!
selection bias? why am I talking to you when existing as exactly who we are is even less likely than 1 divided by the number of stars
You could not ask that question if it were not so. It's like being a puddle and asking why this pothole fits you so well.
Answer: because we couldn't live on a planet where live can't exist as we know it.
@@filonin2 I think that you are missing the point. You should be able to ask the question If intelligent life can came into existence in planets where technology cannot develop (a ocean planet or in a planet with instabilities as in M-Star systems or many others).
I love the approach, and it informs us of a likely outcome in a way which the drake equation cannot (my issue with it has always been its arbitrary unbounded nature) There are still many many variables which are unknown and unaccounted for however, so while i understand the pessimism, I wouldn't wallow in it too much.
I've been a fan of this channel for a long time, and this is one of my favorites. While listening to the birth/death theory, I couldn't help thinking about the simulation hypothesis. The absence of detectable civilizations always takes me to the simulation hypothesis. My mind then immediately takes me to the double slit experiments where light wave functions suddenly collapse and change from a wave to a particle when being observed. I'm not a PHD experimental physicist, but this phenomenon scares the hell out of me.
This is one of the few channels, if not the only one, where the presenter has not been afraid to disagree with the optimistic search for life. He's expressed his skepticism in other videos and I think it's refreshing. I think some anti science logic has become so ingrained that people cannot fathom the opposite being true. We've all heard that "Is arrogant and self centered to think we are the only ones in the galaxy" but like... Even scientist think there's a strong, rational, chance that's the case.
why is it so inconceivable to posit that we are the FIRST civilization in the universe?
That’s actually a good point, too. There always has to be first and we may very well be that. However, if that was the case then we would forever be confused and ever searching for an eternity.
@@Exen88 Why?
Maybe we are, it's something I've wondered. Particularly considering that in the life-bearing period of the universe, we seem to have developed suspiciously close to the beginning of it (given it's trillions of years long).
First and the Last. I think life is just too complex to be common
I'm sorry I have to say this but mainstream science needs a reality check. When goverments all over the world are worried about what flying in the skies that no one can explain scientist should pay more attention.
An alien civilization could be 100% different from all the scientific methods we apply to comunicate or discover them. The science may be absolete here and we need to change our way of understanding other worlds. We may exceeded in math but our theories are as best as our primitive thinking.
Thank you so much for this. This is the closest I've ever felt to understanding this question
Excellent hypothesis. And it's always fun to watch these videos and see when Jody Foster shows up looking for signals....
The hills are alive.
With the sound of music.
Even if there is only 1 advanced civilization per galaxy, that is still trillions . The question is, could we ever hope to detect a civilization.... that far away .
One of your best vids yet. Thank you
It seems to me that the most likely explanation is indeed just that we are at the forefront of the "state change" in our galaxy of it becoming colonized with life. Even just looking back over the last 100 years of human civilization, it is incredibly apparent. We are growing and expanding at an ever increasing rate, and really if anything we are now able to peer into the future through the lens provided by your paper. Very very intriguing :)
3 observations: 1. Compared to its lifespan, the universe is young as is the galaxy. 2. Cognitive science suggest that life and self-awareness are not too uncommon in the galaxy, but that intelligence and the evolutionary means to implement it may be very rare. 3. The speed of light is very slow and there are many puzzles about the nature of the universe and galaxy that we have yet to understand. I am in the camp of those who believe that intelligent life on earth may be a one off in the galaxy, if not the universe, and that we should do everything we can to preserve it and propagate it through the universe
What was the formula for that S shaped curve? and that probability curve with the valley?
It would be nice to see those on the screen when you show graphs like that.
Brilliant treatment of this subject. As you pointed out, the alone vs teaming gambit assumes that all simple life will eventually develop technology but what if that's not the case. We might have a galaxy teaming with squirrels and janitors sweeping floors, that leave no technological signatures.
So, you do touch on this towards the end, so I am not saying you (and others) completely ignore this point, but I'd like to add perspective to the "simpler" civilizations bit.
It *really* depends on what we classify as "simple" and what we expect as the "norm" of expected progress and it would be great if more people could consider that.
For context and to show that it can take a while to maybe have a more varied view: I did my undergrad in physics, then did complex dynamic systems modeling in grad school and gradually drifted towards computational neuroscience. During my postdoc and later faculty position I got to work with a more diverse group of researchers for the first time. I came into my postdoc research thinking I have a decent grasp on how much we know or don't know about human cognition but then had to learn that basing our wealth of knowledge on a population of 90% college students from a very particular life style background might possibly be a tad too simplistic. Not all cultures are like the European-influenced subjects we had data from, not all languages work the way English does, not all cognitive tasks are mastered equally by people from different backgrounds.
Yet, we know that on a structural level a person is the same no matter if they are from a community that has no concept of ownership or one that has no concept of counting in numbers higher than a handful or whether they are a NASA scientist. So... are we classifying one community as "higher" civilization and the others as not, simply because only one of these would be able to send communicative messages to other worlds?
You are obviously not saying that humans who do not live in the same culture as you or me, or humans 5000 or 10,000 years, or even 500k years, ago were simpler than we are now. But at the same time, there seems to be an implication that out of the cognitive complexity of the kind that our particular species of ape has to work with, technological progress of a very specific kind necessarily should emerge. It also somewhat necessarily implies that any species with this sort of cognitive complexity would have similar goals and means to reach them. And those are conceptual hurdles I somewhat struggle with.
I really wonder how much the historical fact of the particular type of historical developments that happened to influence our species' progress influences our notions about "typicality".
If you ever did a video on why these assumptions should hold, I'd be happy if anyone could share a link. If not, maybe that's a video idea to consider ;)
This seems very well thought out.
Thanks.
OP I've actually clicked on your video exactly because it was not a clickbait thinking this must be legit good. I wasn't disappointed!
It’s absolutely incredible that we can use sheer logic and reasoning to draw conclusions for things which we have so little data. If hypothetically we were to establish contact with someone out there, could the same skills be used to decipher their language? I realize this might be a little too speculative for your taste, but I would love to see a video on something like that! Anyway, much love! I look forward to every new video from this channel ❤
It’s absolutely silly to think that we can use sheer logic and reasoning to draw conclusions for things which we have so little data.
Your sincere passion always shows through, no matter how logical you try to portray your theories.... Never change💞
Subscribed. Initially because it’s not AI and I can see the actual person. Yes, it’s come to this. Who would’ve thought.
But also well done, how have I not come across this channel before.
That was awesome. Very thought provoking. I see it like tuning in a radio station with a dial. Instead of silence, what if we fine tuned our search criteria to an actual area where reception is possible rather than a veritable endless white noise, hoping for the best? You never know but all of a sudden we could be flooded with new and exciting data.
I just watched Avi Loeb's TED talk and was reminded of this video. I love the science I see here.
Fair enough, all that Loeb suggests in his talk is that we keep looking and spend money on that endeavour rather than shooting at each other. And that's alright with me.
Hope this channel makes it to 1m
Great video! One thing though, the scene at 3:50 is not Avengers Endgame, it’s a favorite movie of mine called ‘Prisoners’.
Great argument. Great presentation.👏
Where do images from 17:50 frames come from?
Have you considered that the birth to death ratio may oscillate rather than be continuously rising or falling or remaining steady. Eg, in earths history boom and bust population cycles are common, viz the 5 mass extinctions that were followed by biodiversity explosions eg the Cambrian explosion. Also chaos effects allowing possibility of random oscillations around a mean may be relevant. If the Galaxy could be in one of the oscillations with a low Birth to death ratio, but way in future it may be way a higher, ratio. Food for Thought! Thanks