Fermi Paradox and the great filter: are we Ahead, Behind, Between or none of these?

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:37:29 -0500

The Drake Equation estimates how many intelligent life species should be out there, Fermi Paradox asks why we haven't seen any, "The Great Filter" is the hypothesized solution: something keeps life from developing to the point where we would observe it. So: Are we past our filter? Or heading toward it? Or are there multiple filters?
http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/fermi-paradox.html
xkcd.com/1377/

The Fermi Paradox - Wait But Why

Scientists estimate that there are over 100,000 intelligent alien civilizations in our galaxy alone—but we've never heard anything from any of them. Here are 13 possible explanations for why.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Feb 8 at 2016 10:48 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 22:48:15 -0500

Or maybe it's because the universe is so incomprehensibly large, and we have observed such a tiny fraction of it, that the odds of us finding life so far (or it finding us) is just not high. It would be like landing on Mars, looking at a single speck of dust (or a fraction of one) and saying "there's no life on this planet!"

On a scientific level, space between stars and galaxies is just so large that assuming we are bounded by the speed of light, it may not be practical for deep inter-galactic travel. By the time you get there, the Universe would dead given the time dilation you experience at those speeds.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Feb 8 at 2016 11:25 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 23:25:36 -0500

Capt Richard I P. The Drake Equation is fallacious, because it's entirely contrived -- he simply picked what he thought was the best variables, and went with it. He wasn't being disingenuous, or trying to sell snake oil -- he did the best he could, with the given information he had at the time. Still...it's just that: contrived. Made up. It's one smart guy's best guess, but has no known basis in factual reality, because he had to essentially make up some of the variables. For example, the statistical probability that intelligent life will evolve given a certain set of circumstances. (In reality, insofar as we have empirical proof, intelligent life evolves 100% of the time on watery worlds within their stars' 'Goldilocks' zone. Problem is, we only have a sample of one.)

As for why we haven't observed life out there? There are several accepted theories, but I concur mostly with the simplest: the distances are too great. Any electromagnetic signals emitted by anyone(thing), travel at the speed of light. So a civilization that's 100k light years away that followed a similar path to technology (that would emit such signals), would likely have 'exploded' into hi-tech over a relatively short period of their looong development cycle...just like we did. Therefore, their signals are not yet anywhere near us.

Secondly, the energy required to cross those distances are, literally, astronomical. Until some civilization beats e=MC2, whatever form that takes (warp drives, Alcubierre bubbles, wormholes, whatever)...don't expect visitors any time soon. And that brings me to my last point:

Finally, there is NO REASON for an advanced civilization to come and visit us. Everything on earth, literally everything, every single atom, can be replicated with materials found in our own asteroid belt, likely millions and millions of times over. This is going to be true of ANY mature solar system. Aliens are never going to come here to take our water or resources simply because they're waayyy too abundant out there. If they ever did come, however, we'd best hope that they're benevolent -- to get here would require an energy source like nothing we've ever seen...and energy source is synonymous with weapon.

Having said all that? I'm just an armchair scientist, but I'm pretty good at math. Trillions of stars out there. Many will have no planets. Many will have 50 (or more). SOME of those planets are going to replicate conditions similar to earth. There will be billions of these. Not all of them will produce intelligent life, but if even an infinitesimal percentage of them do...well. It's a statistical IMPOSSIBILITY that there's not life out there.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Feb 8 at 2016 11:55 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 23:55:44 -0500

We only just recently discovered that there ARE other planets outside our solar system; we have not yet approached the point of being able to discover whether there is life on any of them.

When Orville and Wilbur first flew nobody envisioned the stealth bomber.

Have patience.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Feb 9 at 2016 12:13 AM

SN Greg Wright — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 00:13:51 -0500

Capt Richard I P. By the way, what an excellent post!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 9 at 2016 8:26 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 09 Feb 2016 08:26:21 -0500

I first became aware of the Fermi Paradox through Ultimate Fantastic Four (Marvel Comics) strangely enough. It used the Fermi Paradox to justify Galactus the world eater.

The issue I've always seen is one of "big sky little planet."

Unless there is a specific need to travel to a set point in space (planet), why go there? Why fight a gravity well to get a resource that is likely much more abundant in space itself? That's compounded by distance and "communications." We've really only been able to communicate outside our own atmosphere for a couple hundred years. The closest planet is 10 light years away (20 year round trip with lightspeed travel).

Then look at where we are in relation to everything else. We're essentially on a backwater world, in the outer arm of a galaxy, outside the "core." It removes us so far from where other life would be "likely."

So.. were I to guess, we've got time (lots). We just haven't been sending out signals long enough for anyone else to hear. Likewise, we'll we'll probably hear someone else well before we encounter them. Universe is a big big place.