Why in spite of the many years of listening to radio waves emitted from various parts of the cosmos, did not there appear such, which would mean the possibility of existence in another cosmos of intelligent creatures?
For several dozen years, various astronomical programs have been running radio-frequency listening programs of various emission ranges to diagnose those that could be a testimony that somewhere in another constellation there is or has existed the civilization of other intelligent beings.
However, up to now, it has not been possible to diagnose such waves that could confirm the existence of other intelligent beings in the cosmos and thus other, developed forms of life.
Why has not it worked so far?
Why in spite of the many years of listening to radio waves emitted from various parts of the cosmos, did not there appear such, which would mean the possibility of existence in another cosmos of intelligent creatures?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
I think the only definite statement that can be made is that no signals have been recognized as possibly due to alien technology, except maybe for that single "WOW" signal. So what does this mean? All sorts of answers are possible -- you choose the one you think is most likely.
(1) No one else is there; we are all alone.
(2) No one else is close enough for us to detect with present sensitivity.
(3) No one else has developed radio communication.
(4) "They" did develop radio, and then abandoned it.
(5) "They" are using narrowly beamed radio signals, just not at us.
(6) "They" are trying to make their presence known, but we haven't recognized it.
And the list goes on. There could be more reasons not listed here.
And of course we have to allow for the travel time of radio for determining how long after a signal originated that it arrives here.
I think that the stock answer is that the use of radio waves by an evolving civilization occupies such a short interval of time (relative to cosmic time) that it is unlikely that in our short time of monitoring that we would hear the broadcasts even if we could decipher them. The expectation is that civilzations more advanced than ours will use technologies unrecognizable to us. The other answer, of course, is that there simply isn't anybody out there. But if you don't listen, you won't hear. We did find pulsars (rotating neutron stars), however!
I think the answer is obvious, we could only detect a signal if the remote civilisation was beaming a signal at us.
We aren't beaming high power signals at any target stars so why should we assume they would beam signals at us? Our planet has been around for 4.5 billion years but we've only had radio telescopes for less than a century. How long would we send a continuous signal pointed at another star hoping they would reply? would we run our transmitters continuously for say a billion years just in case they evolved the capability in that time? If we aren't doing it, why should we think they would?
Then there's distance. Would we send a terrawatt signal to every star within 20 light years? That's only a handful. How about within 20000 light years? That's millions of stars but you also need a million times more power per star to reach that far. Billions of megawatts to billions of stars for billions of years, who pays the electricity bill?
There's no harm in looking, receivers don't need much power, but transmitting is expensive.
Dear George,
But aren't they looking at spherical waves that would register the signature of intelligible noise from the emitting planet? I think that they are listenening for any kind of signal that might indicate intelligence whether actually intelligent or no.
@George Dishman...we could only detect a signal if the remote civilization was beaming a signal at us.
I agree.
When it comes to space exploration, probing for intelligent life on other planets, we are, so speak, "babes in the woods". So far, we have determined that microbial life forms are [were] entirely possible Mars, since we have detected water on Mars.
The science of probing for intelligent signals from extraterrestial bodies is in its infancy.
A rather dour view of Fermi's question "Where is everybody?" is considered in
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.0624.pdf
Followers of this thread may find the following comprehensive survey of life-detection technologies
of interest:
LIFE-DETECTION TECHNOLOGIES FOR THE NEXT TWO DECADES
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.06026.pdf
If we wanted to communicate with an alien civilization or they with us, yes, we would use beamed signils. But if all we want to do is to detect intelligent sounding radio chatter all we need is a big dish antenna.
Unfortunately, the hypothetical "chatter" if it exists would be intended by the originator to communicate with destinations other than ourselves hence it would be beamed, but not at us. It would probably be usable only over minimal distances due to the round-trip time and using the minimum power necessary to achieve a reasonable error rate implies a Rayleigh length comparable to the communications distance (which incidentally prefers optical to radio bands). Sidelobe leakage would be orders of magnitude lower than the beamed signal.
If we could look for signals in a silent universe, the challenge would only be sensitivity but in the real sky, there is always a background from thermal and other sources. Leakage signals are very unlikely to exceed that and that makes them undetectable regardless of the performance capability of the receiver, someone targetting a beacon at us is the only credible detection scenario and I can't see a reason why an extra-solar technological race would do that without first seeing signs of technology here, for example evidence of industrialisation in our atmosphere.
I think the only definite statement that can be made is that no signals have been recognized as possibly due to alien technology, except maybe for that single "WOW" signal. So what does this mean? All sorts of answers are possible -- you choose the one you think is most likely.
(1) No one else is there; we are all alone.
(2) No one else is close enough for us to detect with present sensitivity.
(3) No one else has developed radio communication.
(4) "They" did develop radio, and then abandoned it.
(5) "They" are using narrowly beamed radio signals, just not at us.
(6) "They" are trying to make their presence known, but we haven't recognized it.
And the list goes on. There could be more reasons not listed here.
And of course we have to allow for the travel time of radio for determining how long after a signal originated that it arrives here.
The greenhouse effect is gradually progressing on Earth. Consequently, the risk of new climate disasters increases every year. Currently, technologies are being developed with the help of which space ships will be built to enable a manned space mission to Mars. In the 21st century, will man be able to overcome greater distances and get to know some other planets of our solar system? Is it possible to develop on Earth a technology that a man can leave the solar system and, for example, one day he can reach the nearest Alpha Centauri constellation? In connection with the above, the question arises: Will man manage to create technologies thanks to which he will leave the planet Earth, the Solar System and reach other planetary systems? Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Will the new generation of astronomical instruments ever reach the farthest corners of the universe, reach the edge of the universe and explain the essence of the boundlessness of what is possibly beyond the known Universe?
Perhaps someday in the future, thanks to the huge telescopes, we will discover the details of the distant planets in other planetary systems in other galaxies, i.e. exoplanets.
According to astronomers' forecasts, it will be technically possible to build such large telescopes in a few dozen years.
Astronomers have so far discovered a small part of the planets in our Andromeda Galaxy.
Billions of exoplanets existing in other constellations are still unknown.
However, even these known exoplanets are studied to a very limited extent.
In the case of the majority of exoplanets learned, apart from the knowledge of size and mass, little is known about them.
More and more perfect astronomical tools are being built, more and more telescopes provide new knowledge.
Thanks to more perfect astronomical instruments, we know more and more about the cosmos, but on the other hand we know that we still do not know more and more about the vastness of the Universe.
Will we ever know the answer to the question: Are there other forms of life somewhere in the universe and how does life look like?
Will the new generation of astronomical instruments ever reach the farthest corners of the universe, reach the edge of the universe and explain the essence of the boundlessness of what is possibly beyond the known Universe?
In view of the above, the current question is: Will the new generation of astronomical instruments ever reach the farthest corners of the universe, reach the edge of the universe and explain the essence of the boundlessness of what is possibly beyond the known Universe?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
The above question inspired me to the following considerations:
Can other forms of life occur on other exoplanets?
Research is currently underway to answer what conditions are needed to create life in a situation of a different chemical composition that is potentially present in many exoplanets, i.e. planets in other planetary systems, in other constellations of our Andromeda Galaxy or in other galaxies.
Perhaps for the emergence of life it is necessary to have on the given planet, far from the Sun, many various other determinants, such as the occurrence of water and atmosphere with a specific chemical composition.
Therefore, perhaps life exists in the Universe on other exoplanets very rarely.
Theories on this topic among astronomers have changed significantly over the last several decades.
In the 1960s, most scientists claimed that in the entire Universe life was created only once, ie on Earth.
Some scientists then pointed to the groundlessness of searching for intelligent life outside Earth.
It was claimed because it was thought that the origin of life on Earth is a kind of unique case of chemical reactions that took place on Earth.
Chemical reactions with such a low probability that one should exclude the possibility of repeating such a large coincidence of the necessary determinants of the origin of life.
However, even then, in terms of the number of other planetary systems found in other constellations, in other galaxies, in the number of other exoplanets, a certain distance from their suns, these estimates were mistaken.
The emergence of better telescopes generated a change in these estimates.
This change consisted in thousands of galaxies being turned into billions of galaxies.
Similar to the number of planets in these galaxies.
Therefore, even if we take into account the statistics and the question of selecting random determinants determining the emergence of life on other exoplanets, if these potential exoplanets with favorable conditions for the emergence of life is not hundreds, thousands but millions, then the probability is much greater.
In the 1970s, the researcher Francis Crick wrote that "Nowadays the emergence of life seems almost a miracle, because for it to exist, a lot of conditions must be met".
Similarly, Jacques Monod wrote in a book published in 1970: "Case and necessity" wrote: "People finally know that they are lonely in the indifferent space of the Universe, in which they appeared by pure chance".
(continued in the comments).
In view of the above, the current question is: Can other forms of life occur on other exoplanets?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
The eminent scientist Paul Davies claims that currently many scientists are in favor of completely different theories suggesting a large probability of the fact that life in the Universe was created in many places, on various exoplanets, ie many times.
In addition, many eminent scientists claim that various forms of life occur in various places in the Universe.
Some of the eminent researchers suggest that on some exoplanets, where there are various forms of life, there are also intelligent life forms.
Biologist Christian de Duve went further in this trend of scientific theory because he described life as a "cosmic imperative".
However, modern knowledge in the creation of life on Earth has changed little over the years, since the study of the evolution of life on Earth began to be studied.
Well, we know about the transition from inanimate to life-filled forms on the ground, almost as much as Charles Darwin, who wrote over 100 years ago: "Now thinking about the creation of life is just as silly as considering the origin of matter."
In the field of astronomical instrument technology, a lot of progress has been made over the past few decades.
Recent discoveries of hundreds of exoplanets are an important factor determining the validity of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI - search for extraterrestrial intelligence).
According to current estimates, there may be billions of exoplanets in our own Andromeda Galaxy in the form of planets similar in many respects to Earth.
There is probably a lot of exoplanets that can be colonized.
However, we still do not know the details of the complex process that led to the creation of life on Earth.
We do not know all aspects of the process that converts a mixture of organic or inorganic chemicals into the first life forms into a living cell.
According to Paul Davies, it is not possible to precisely calculate the probability with which life could be created on different exoplanets.
Carl Sagan once remarked that the birth of life can not be so difficult, because then it would not appear on Earth almost immediately after the conditions became appropriate.
Paul Davies also points out that the universal argument is the magnitude of the Universe: if it is so big, then life must appear somewhere. But what does this statement mean? By limiting ourselves to the observable part of the Universe, we will probably find in it 1023 planets. Yes, it is actually a large number. However, it is reduced by the tiny probability of even simple organic molecules being created by pure chance. If the path from chemistry to biology is long and complicated, it may turn out that life occurs less often than on one trillion trillion of planets.
The conviction that life is widespread is based on the silent assumption that biological evolution processes are not the result of accidental chemical reactions, but they contain a specific purpose.
This purpose lies in the development of targeted and increasingly complex self-organization.
The increasingly complex organized structures determine the superiority of the living forms over the inanimate.
Sometimes this is referred to as a kind of unwritten law of life or the purposefulness of creating and developing life with the possible creation of an intelligent being.
However, for now, such theories may arise and will remain only theories, because man has not yet developed research instruments, with the help of which such theories and research thesis could be verified.
Scientist Sagan claimed that life appears frequently in the Universe. He also claimed that perhaps life on Earth arose many times. Therefore, if there were many beginnings of life on Earth, then also in currently functioning ecosystems there should be organisms with a different origin of life.
If such a theory were to turn out to be true, it would mean that in some ecosystems on Earth there are life forms that have arisen in completely different origins of their initial life forms and create a biosphere within one ecosystem.
On the other hand, they have recently been discovered in meteorites that are burning fossils of something that may resemble bacteria.
So if the bacteria could bring life to Earth before billions of years, it would be the first significant evidence of the possibility of life on other exoplanets.
Moreover, it is interesting that in this period of the last few decades, ie when significant changes occurred in the astronomers' theories and in the answer to the question about the existence of other forms of life in the Universe, at the same time in the cinematography the presentation of these alternative alternatives has also changed. worlds, other life forms that may exist on other exoplanets.
It is from the 70s of the twentieth century that the form and content of the depicted cosmos and possible aliens in space in the subsequent films are changing.
The first of the films in which this issue was taken seriously is the movie "2001. Odyssey Space" directed by Stanley Kubrick.
The subject concerned space travel and not discovered, completely different forms of life, however, this film opened a new era in cinematography.
In the following years, more and more sci-fi movies were being made, in which the plot was somewhere in space with the participation of people meeting or even cooperating with other humanlike intelligent beings.
In one of these films, this subject was taken in the convention of typical entertainment as in the films from the saga "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" and in other films in conventions or catastrophic (hostile to Earth humans intelligent creatures from other exoplanets) or in a convention typical paranova , in which people in precisely planned space missions go to Mars (as in the films: "Mission to Mars", "Red Planet", "Martian", ...) or go outside the Solar System to colonize another exoplanet (film "Passenger").
Therefore, the convergence and correlation in the theories of scientists regarding the scale and the probability of other forms of life on other exoplanets and the observed changes in the presentation of the issues of space and life in the cosmos in the cinematography over the last few decades is an interesting one.
In view of the above, the current question is: Can other forms of life occur on other exoplanets?
Please, answer, comments. I invite you to the discussion.
Maybe because we are like a group of blind men groping in the dark looking for something that in essence does not exist at all. ET life is at the level of expectation, there is no solid evidence to back it up.
In view of the above, it is also important to include in the above discussion also the following issue:
How is the unlimitedness of the Universe explained now?
In many cosmological theories, astronomers try to explain the essence of the unlimitedness of the Universe. But how can this unlimitedness be presented and defined in the most concise and clear way possible?
What can be compared to the unlimitedness of the Universe? Or maybe the essence of the problem goes beyond the scientific definition of the concept of the unlimitedness of the Universe?
The problem may be the understanding of this unlimitedness of the Universe by man, because everything that surrounds man in everyday life on Earth is limited.
Do you agree with my opinion on this matter?
In view of the above, I am asking you the following question:
How is the unlimitedness of the Universe explained now?
Please reply
I invite you to the discussion
Best wishes
Other civilizations are just probably avoiding such problematic acquaintances :-)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Kinesiology
- Running