Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Humans Predict ET Contact

SETI Chief Astronomer: "Humans Predicted to Make Contact with an Extraterrestrial Civilization Within Two Decades"

Yes that WAS the thinking after Swiss Astronomers discovered two
two 'life bearing' planets named Gliese581 c, and d, in 2007.
Then the "Drake Equation" estimated that Planetary life would be discovered within 20 years!.

NOT ANY MORE !!"Humans are now Predicted to Make Contact with an Extraterrestrial Civilization Within Four Years"

AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS????
Well its due to the fact that the Life searching Wide-Band Schmidt 'Kepler Space telescope' can look at 100,000 Stars at once, with its sensitive Photometer optics. (Unlike the old Seti
Radio detection system.) In fact Kepler will collect more data in 1 second, during its operation, than all the data in all the printed books here on Earth.
Its sensitive Photometer detects sequences of transits across thousands of Suns, all at once. The transits and speeds tell the Scientists just how big and how close to its Sun is the possible life bearing planet. And whether it has water or other chemicals.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...ike-worlds.html

Alternative biochemists speculate that there are several atoms and solvents that could potentially spawn life. Because carbon has worked for the conditions on Earth, we speculate that the same must be true throughout the universe. In reality, there are many elements that could potentially do the trick. Even counter-intuitive elements such as arsenic may be capable of supporting life under the right conditions. Even on Earth some marine algae incorporate arsenic into complex organic molecules such as arsenosugars and arsenobetaines. Several other small life forms use arsenic to generate energy and facilitate growth. Chlorine and sulfur are also possible elemental replacements for carbon. Sulfur is capably of forming long-chain molecules like carbon. Some terrestrial bacteria have already been discovered to survive on sulfur rather than oxygen, by reducing sulfur to hydrogen sulfide.
Nitrogen and phosphorus could also potentially form biochemical molecules. Phosphorus is similar to carbon in that it can form long chain molecules on its own, which would conceivably allow for formation of complex macromolecules. When combined with nitrogen, it can create quite a wide range of molecules, including rings.
So what about water? Isn’t at least water essential to life? Not necessarily. Ammonia, for example, has many of the same properties as water. An ammonia or ammonia-water mixture stays liquid at much colder temperatures than plain water. Such biochemistries may exist outside the conventional water-based "habitability zone". One example of such a location would be right here in our own solar system on Saturn's largest moon Titan.
Hydrogen fluoride methanol, hydrogen sulfide, hydrogen chloride, and formamide have all been suggested as suitable solvents that could theoretically support alternative biochemistry. All of these “water replacements” have pros and cons when considered in our terrestrial environment. What needs to be considered is that with a radically different environment, comes radically different reactions. Water and carbon might be the very last things capable of supporting life in some extreme planetary conditions.

***Thoughts
Well I am very optimistic that Scientists will find many thousands of life bearing Planets. So that within 3 years the "Drake Equation" will need to be updated.

This seems incredible to me, Mike. The predictions are based on assumed values for Drake Eqn. I don't know whether those assumed values were pessimistic or optimistic.

From the report:

"They say the search could yield 50 or more potentially habitable planets beyond our solar system...The hunt, he stressed, will establish whether there are other habitable planets, and not whether those planets are actually inhabited."

'Habitable' means only that they're capable of supporting life, not that they necessarily do so at present - and, of course, it doesn't imply that they are host to technological civilizations.

I wouldn't be surprised, based on the intensity of research, if strong evidence for life were detected within the next few decades. But a technological ET? Even if the evidence for that were overwhelming, it could take hundreds or, more likely, thousands of years to make contact.

I would very much like to be proven a pessimist.

OK, but why just now?

What changed over last millions of years, when we were without E.T. contact?

[quote=Mike Kremer]
I dont think the word 'Civilization' is quite correct to be used in the context of the original URL.
Prehaps 'lifeforms' would have been better?

"...but why just now?" You ask

I suppose we have reached a state in OUR Civilization where we have developed a photometric Space Telescope that can detect and log all those planets that are neither too hot nor too cold. Where water and other liquid chemicals may exist to promote life forms of some sort or other?
I am optimistic that within the 3 1/2 year, lifespan of Kepler, many thousands of warm life-habitable Planets will be discovered.

[quote=Mike Kremer]
If you use the "Drake Equation" to calculate the number of intelligent communicating civilizations in our Galaxy, you will become very pessimistic.
I am not an advocate of using the Drake Equ: As there are too many unknowns, plus it trys to guesstimate the number of communicating civilizations there are.
We ourselves ARE a communicating civilization. But it seems we have no-one to talk to! That is pessimistic in the extreme!

Yet if you used the "Drake equation" to calculate the number of
Planets that could SUPPORT life, you get extreme optimism.
(and thats without any additional data from Kepler as yet).

We have, 500+ Billion planets in our Galaxy alone, thats 100 Billion Stars in our Galaxy (Milky Way).
Soon Kepler will tell us how many of those 500 billion planets are warm enough to sustain life.
(that would mean ALL the warm planets could sustain life)
Then if you assume all the warm Planets have been around as long as our Sun. A few of them should now be getting into transmitting Radio/TV/lighting, over THEIR last 150 years???
A few are +10,000 years, even more advanced than ourselves??

Looking at things that way, do you feel optimism? i.e. Lots of life around in our Universe.
Shame we will never be able to communicate with it!!!

http://www.fennzart.com/planetarysystems/drake_equation.html

My hunch:

Speaking from ignorance - which is, at present, all we can do on this subject - I expect there's non-sentient life not too far from here, but I very much doubt there's even a Type 0 civ within a thousand parsecs.

Mike: "A few are +10,000 years, even more advanced than ourselves??"

It would be an incredible coincidence if they were that close to being the same age as us, after about 13 billion yrs of galactic evolution - it would be like picking someone at random from a city population, and finding that there born within 30 seconds of the time you were born. Why not 500 million yrs? Or a billion? Or 10 billion? Seriously.

I find it easy to imagine that there are Type III and Type IV civs, but contact is another matter. If they're that wise, they might choose to prevent contact.

Whatever, right now we don't have the data. It's just begun to trickle in, and I agree, it is exciting.

[quote=Mike Kremer]
Interesting point Rede, but it really depends upon where one is coming from regarding the formation of life?
I agree with you, we are speaking from ignorance on this particular aspect...but I personally prefer to believe that life ...at least in our part of the Milky Way, arrived at the same or a similar time.
Here I am thinking of Panspermia, or lifes arrival via "slushy comets". Therebye making for similar developments, at least in time.
Would there be any point in looking for intelligent life, in ones own part of the Galaxy, if you thought, or believed it had
preceeded you, or had yet to arrive....by a few million years?
Similar arrival times for life, seems the more logical?
Most of us Humans, dont seem to want to feel alone in the cosmos?
We want the hope that there is some intelligent life out there.
The many areas in South Africa, and Australia devoted to Radio frequency telescopes donated by contributing goverments, show the 'brotherly thoughts' we Humans have?
I think that DNA life alive and well upon thousands of Planets, Kepler, hopefully will tell us very soon.
Its the conditions upon these planets that determine the development of this life.

I will be elated if we find any life - intelligent or not.

Mike: "Would there be any point in looking for intelligent life, in ones own part of the Galaxy, if you thought, or believed it had preceeded you, or had yet to arrive....by a few million years?

If you're asking me, yes. 'Preceded' doesn't have to mean "Dead". As an extreme example, it may have been around for up to 12 billion years.

"Here I am thinking of Panspermia, or lifes arrival via "slushy comets". Therebye making for similar developments, at least in time."

"Similar arrival times for life, seems the more logical?"

No, not at all.

Mike, your expectations seem to include:

(a) All planets receiving seeds become suitable hosts at the same point in time.

(b) A Type 0 civilization will evolve after a precise time, let's say, 3 billion years plus or minus about 10,000 yrs.

Pull the other one Mike

[quote=Mike Kremer]

Maybe you should read my reply more carefully. I never mention
a Type 0 civilisation, or its evolvement after a precise time.

However I did imply that I personally prefer to believe that life ...at least in our part of the Milky Way, arrived at the same, or a similar time. Here I was thinking of Panspermia, or lifes arrival via "slushy comets". Therebye making for similar developments, at least in time. But NOT the development of a civilization! I did qualify this in my last sentence by saying:-
Its the conditions upon these planets that determine the development of this life.
I have not changed anything that I had said previously...apart from making things a little clearer.
We might agree to disagree on this unknown subject. But my thinking still is that a Slushy Comet would have seeded life simultaneously, on the Keplerised planets soon to be found in our part of the Milky Way. Its the conditions on the various Planets that develop civilisations,
Type 0 , or not.
Addition....Its also logical to assume that Life would only get started upon a Keplerised (suitable) Planets. While Slushy Comets are zipping around all over the place.
Not pulling your leg either

Oh, I see, then I misinterpreted you. So I expect you would agree that the probability of contacting intelligent life with a technological development within, say, 1,000,000 yrs of our own is close to zero.

[quote=Mike Kremer]

Yes absolutely, I do agree with you on that one.......unless
one happens to believe in Flying Saucers.

The FallibleFiend said, he would be elated if we find any life - intelligent or not.
I think we all agree on the finding part, but what about the intelligent part?
How relatively intelligent does the more simpler forms of life have to be, before we regard them as intelligent?
Are the lower forms of life aware of their intelligence?
Is the Sea Otter floating on his back in the ocean, cracking shells open with a stone, against his tummy, think himself intelligent?
And just how do those Crabs and Worms find those Hot Vent Holes deep on the ocean bed? After walking hundreds of miles?
We seem to think lesser developed life has lesser intelligence, and pro-rata.
Is that how intelligence works?

Could the ability for a particular species, just to keep itself alive for thousands, even millions of years in this Universe, be the ultimate test of intelligence?

Mike: "How relatively intelligent does the more simpler forms of life have to be, before we regard them as intelligent?"

A very good question.

When I was at school (yes, I can still remember), there was a discussion about the meaning of the word 'intelligence'. I happened to remark that dogs often showed a good deal of intelligence - at which the teacher piped up, "I'm talking about real intelligence, let's not get into mysticism". I guess the reason I recall it so clearly is that it struck me quite sharply as a remark both ill-considered and ironic.

But how far do you go?

Mike: "Could the ability for a particular species, just to keep itself alive for thousands, even millions of years in this Universe, be the ultimate test of intelligence?"

That would make bacteria pretty good candidates. Even the mitochondria that are now in our cells.

Perhaps we should accept, provisionally, and for the sake of argument, a dictionary definition -

Intelligent: Having the capacity for thought and reason.

There may be many species for which that's difficult to ascertain.

A giant telescope powerful enough to identify habitable planets like Earth in distant solar systems is to be built by scientists

In fact it is going to be so big:- "There will be more glass in this telescope than there is in all the other telescopes currently in use around the world put together.
WOW
Lets see when its built....provided us Europeans have enough money to see the project thru. I just hope its not all hype.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtec...like-Earth.html

"Astronomers claim the huge instrument, which will house a mirror the width of five double decker buses placed end to end, will be able to spot rocky Earth-like planets up to 100 million million miles away."**

(Why double decker, I wonder? )

It would be a great engineering accomplishment, but that's an effective planet-spotting range of only about 17 lt.yrs (5 parsecs), which would encompass about 50 stars. Whatever the current motivation - this would seem to be very superior to the HST - it would serve as a logical first step in a very long term colonization program.

**Reading further, this is at variance with:

'Professor Andrew Cameron, an astronomer at University of St Andrews, said: "If they live up to the design goal, we will be able to detect Earth-like planets tens of light years away."'

[quote=Mike Kremer]
Yes agreed, it would be a tremendous engineering accomplishment.
But would it really do any better than the Kepler Telescope?. (which incidentally is about to start photographing, having blown off its dust cover the other day)
The Euro-Telescopes big advantage is that it will out-last Kepler, by fifty times,... if its ever built?.
Then again, if they do hurry up and build it, it might be put to good use, by focussing upon the Moon and Mars Astronauts, as they set up their blowup rubber-metallized habitation unit, for colonisation purposes. Likewise for Mars
Then we could all actually see the astronauts walking about, and riding their Mooncar. Prime realtime TV for the masses.

Not having heard of the E-ELT, I web searched. Whereas the Kepler is specifically designed to find and study exoplanets, the E-ELT has a much more extensive purpose. Here's some info:

http://www.eso.org/public/astronomy/projects/e-elt.html

"Adaptive mirrors are incorporated into the optics of the telescope to compensate for the fuzziness in the stellar images introduced by atmospheric turbulence. One of these mirrors is supported by more than 5000 actuators that can distort its shape a thousand times per second."

- Science truth is stranger then science fiction!