About Me

My photo
I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.

Saturday, April 09, 2011


 Why haven't we found aliens yet?

By Alex Hudson for BBC News

14 December 2010

The question of whether or not we are alone in the galaxy is one that has fascinated everyone from mathematicians to conspiracy theorists. But, if extra-terrestrial life forms are abundant in the Universe - as some people believe - why have they not been in contact? From Doctor Who to Superman, ET to Marvin the Martian, fiction has regularly brought aliens to Earth as friends or enemies but, as yet, no-one has proved
they have ever seen an alien apart from on film or TV. In 1960, a radio telescope was pointed out into space to listen for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence, trying to add scientific fact to the question "is anybody out there?" But 50 years on, nobody knows the answer to it. "It's probably the most important question there is," says Dr Frank Drake, who was a pioneer of radio astronomy and is considered the father of Seti - the
Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. "What does it mean to be a human being? What is our future? Are there other creatures like us? What have they become? What can evolution produce? How far can it go? It will all come out of learning of extra-terrestrials and this will certainly enrich our lives like nothing else could."

Back in 1961, Drake created a formula to work out how likely it was that we are alone in the galaxy, a formula which still underpins how experts view the question today. The Drake Equation is a formula designed to find the number of intelligent civilisations in the galaxy, using:
 
The number of stars formed every year
Multiplied by the fraction of those stars with planets
Times the number of those planets in the solar system that could support life
Multiplied by the fraction of those planets on which life appears
Multiplied by the fraction of those life-bearing planets on which intelligence arises
Times the fraction of those that would become technologically advanced with a desire to communicate
Multiplied by the length of time that they continue to transmit detectable signals into space

The so-called "Drake equation" estimates the amount of civilisations able to communicate with Earth. And the figure Drake and his colleagues estimated in 1961 was 10,000. Many argue over the exact figures, as the equation is based on unknowns. But if that number is anywhere near correct then the more pressing question is why haven't we got any firm evidence of their existence? This was a question posed by the physicist Enrico Fermi as far back as 1950, saying "where is everybody?" to his colleagues over lunch. It formed the basis of the Fermi paradox which juxtaposes the high estimates of intelligent life and the lack of evidence put forward. This "great silence" - as it is often referred to - draws attention to the size of the universe and how alone we appear to be. It is a paradox which has yet to be satisfactorily solved. Astronomers have estimated there to be around 70 sextillion - or seven followed by 22 zeroes - stars in the visible Universe. A recent census of planets said that there could be an Earth-like planet circling 23% of the stars in the night sky.The maths alone is an almost inconceivable headache of scope, size and scale.

"We should be prepared" for aliens, says professor of space science John Zarnecki, from the Open University. Stephen Hawking says aliens almost certainly exist and senior Seti astronomer Seth Shostak has said that the hunt for alien life should take into account alien "sentient machines", almost disregarding the possibility that there's nothing to search for. Recent research suggested that there could be up to 50bn Earth-like planets in our galaxy, the Milky Way But many scientists argue that because humans have been using wave technology for little over a century - compared to the Earth's age of over four billion years - even if anyone is out there, the window of opportunity to have similar technology is incredibly small. Indeed, the radio wave as we know it for our communication purposes, is already changing from an analogue wave into a digital pulse, a much more complex signal to detect. And similarly, the waves scientists are looking for may not be the right ones. While a larger amount of the wave spectrum is being examined, it is still a small fraction. The theory goes that no other inhabited planet is likely to be using the same technology at the same time, or at least within distance of making contact. The actual practicalities of ET phoning home would be, they would argue, basically impossible.

Another theory is that with intelligence comes destruction. The time between being able to make contact and the self destruction of the species is short. Purveyors of this theory cite nuclear warfare or the creation of a man-made virus only possible with technological advances as examples of why it is likely. And many disagree about whether this is anything to look for at all. Indeed, the simplest answer to Fermi's Paradox is that there is no intelligent life to search for so none has been found. The human race is either an accidental blip in the Universe or we are special and the conditions we evolved in were unique. The Rare Earth hypothesis argues that because of the intricate design and infrastructure of our planet, the amount of coincidences and circumstances that must occur together make life almost impossible. Philosophy Professor Nick Bostrom, of Oxford University, has even posed the question whether humans are living in a computer simulation created by beings with a superior intellect. In this model, other beings would not be created within that programme. But Dr Drake has a more simple answer to why life hasn't been found: "We just haven't tried enough," he says. "We've looked carefully at only a few thousand stars and very few channels that are possible on the electromagnetic spectrum and that's hardly even a start. If you take reasonable or optimistic values for the [Drake] equation, it suggests that right now, there may be around 10,000 civilisations we can detect in the galaxy. That's one in 10,000,000 stars. Before we have a good chance of succeeding, we still have a long way to go."

[Personally I give the Drake Equation little credence. It has just too many unknowns and rests on too much speculation. But he is right to say that life elsewhere in the Galaxy cannot simply be dismissed because, in the 50 or so years we’ve been searching, we haven’t found anything yet. 50 years is nothing when you consider the scale of the territory we’re searching on a low priority, low budget methodology. It’s only recently we’ve begun to discover planets and even more recently that we’ve been able to detect planets that might be considered to be habitable (even that is quite simply mind-blowing). I’m confident that life exists out there. Where there is life there will be evolution and intelligence is a heck of an evolutionary advantage. Given time intelligent species such as ourselves will evolve and probably begin to explore their local region of space. Probably tied to sub-light exploration the only way we’ll detect them is via radio signals or gross changes in their surroundings – like blanketing their suns in energy absorbing materials. There could be advanced civilisations signalling us right now from hundreds of light wears away waiting eagerly for their signals to reach us. It’s probably only a matter of time one way or another. I for one have certainly not given up on the possibility of ET phoning us….]

4 comments:

dbackdad said...

I'm confident there is life out there. There are so many reasons why we haven't. Our conception of what is life could be the issue. I think we focus too much on the assumption that it will be carbon-based. Also, and I think the author mentioned this, the heyday of a civilization is a blip in the timeline of a planet, let alone a solar system or galaxy. We could have analyzed systems that had life millions of years in the past and we wouldn't even know it.

Stephen said...

"Why we haven't seen any spaceships" is easy: space is BIG. Even if there's a civilization out there willing to send out sleeper ships, what are the odds of their sending one to our planet...?

Carl Sagan's "Contact" scenario (contact being made by radio transmission) is more believable, but I've also read that such transmissions lose integrity as they travel through space, and so our "radio bubble" is not as dense as we think. I've also read -- though I have not confirmed -- that the increasing digitization of media has cut down on our radio output and reduced the bubble further still. If other civilizations switch to digital output over standard transmissions, Sagan's scenario becomes more unlikely...except for the case of civs interested in finding other civilizations, who purposely send high-powered transmissions toward other planets.

Sadie Lou said...

I still think that out of all the people that have claimed to be abducted by aliens, one of them has got to be telling the truth. I mean, how could so many people from all over the world, from different walks of life, with no real agenda...be making up the same lie? There has to be a shred of truth to at least one of those testimonials.

CyberKitten said...

dbackdad said: I think we focus too much on the assumption that it will be carbon-based.

Carbon is a very good candidate for the base for life. Although Silicon *can* be such a basis it's a poor substitute (as far as I'm aware). Whatever we do find (or finds us) is likely to be carbon based.

dbackdad said: We could have analyzed systems that had life millions of years in the past and we wouldn't even know it.

Very true. until we get better instruments or can actually visit other stars it will be very difficult to tell if we missed a civilisation.

sc said: "Why we haven't seen any spaceships" is easy: space is BIG.

BIG just doesn't begin to describe it [grin] Just this Galaxy is frickin' HUGE!

sc said: the increasing digitization of media has cut down on our radio output and reduced the bubble further still.

We are getting smarter with our telecomms which means we're getting much less 'leakage' into space. Maybe other nearby civilisations are super efficient communicators (or just don't communicate in the way we expect them to?). We are after all making many assumptions on the back of a single example - us.

Sadie said: I still think that out of all the people that have claimed to be abducted by aliens, one of them has got to be telling the truth.

OK - *which* one? [grin]

Sadie said: I mean, how could so many people from all over the world, from different walks of life, with no real agenda...be making up the same lie?

They may all be mistaken in different ways (or lying) but its all going through a cultural filter so most of it comes out looking the same (or similar enough) to look consistent. I understand that abduction stories have actually changed over time and, after the mass exposure of recent years, have started to follow a well published format.

Sadie said: There has to be a shred of truth to at least one of those testimonials.

Why? Without any credible evidence how can you tell? People simply telling what 'happened' isn't anywhere near enough - especially when their claims are so extraordinary. I find it amazing that in all the many, many cases there appears to be no hard physical evidence of the events - unless you think that governments are covering it all up.... and, of course, you'd need quite a bit of evidence to support that idea too!