Astronomer: There may be 100 billion Earth-like planets in Milky Way

[evman150]

I'm not disagreeing with what you said. I'm disagreeing with your reasons you give for what you said. Namely that they are baseless and ignorant.

Claims aren't ignorant. Well some are, but your's aren't. But your reasons for making the claims are most definitely ignorant.

In astrophysics, a lot of the time we lack absolute 'proof'. A lot of astronomy isn't testable. We make inferences; we extrapolate a small, hopefully representative bit of data into a generalization about the nature of the universe. You can't ask for absolute proof of anything. That's not being scientific and skeptical, it's being nihilistic and obtuse.

And btw, it's 'tenets', not 'tenants'.

[RT14]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I'm open to life on other planets, I'm open to intelligent life on other planets. But the fact is, if it was teeming with it, so close, we would have seen signs of it by now.

I think it's statements like this that prove Evman right about your ignorance to the matter at hand.

Even if our galaxy was "teeming" with life, even if it was intelligent life, why are you so sure we would have seen signs of it by now? You do realize that we can't actually visually see any earth like planets beyond our Solar System right now, right? The only reason we know there are some is because of watching specific stars for long periods of time and analyzing the disturbances in their light, proving that there are large bodies revolving around them. It's not like we can point Hubble at a relatively not so distant star, press the zoom button and have a look at the surfaces of the planets around them.

As Evman or Photon said, the closest star is 10's of LIGHT YEARS away, so what are the chances that a civilization has lasted long enough to create the technology to travel these distances AND said civilization just happened to find itty bitty Earth along their journeys through space?

I'll give you my UN-educated guess...slim to none.

For all we know, we are the most advanced civilization in our galaxy or possibly even universe. As much as I find that hard to believe, it's certainly possible so it would be pretty damn difficult to have seen signs of other civilized life out there even if the galaxy and universe is "teeming" with it.

[icecube]

The universe is so mind bogglingly infinite. If there are in fact multiverses and multiple dimensions like some quantum physicists hypothesize, I'm putting money on Star Wars being a work of non fiction right down to the last bit of dialogue.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by RT14

As Evman or Photon said, the closest star is 10's of LIGHT YEARS away,

Well actually the closest star is "only" 4.2 light years away with 11 stars within 10 light years.

[worth]

Originally Posted by icecube

The universe is so mind bogglingly infinite. If there are in fact multiverses and multiple dimensions like some quantum physicists hypothesize, I'm putting money on Star Wars being a work of non fiction right down to the last bit of dialogue.

If there are an infinite number of universes, then there are an infinite number of possibilities for everything. There are an infinite number of you and me and we will carry out every possible timeline for our lives, which there are an infinite number of. In one parallel universe, I just died right now. Good thing it wasn't in this one.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by evman150

In astrophysics, a lot of the time we lack absolute 'proof'. A lot of astronomy isn't testable. We make inferences; we extrapolate a small, hopefully representative bit of data into a generalization about the nature of the universe. You can't ask for absolute proof of anything. That's not being scientific and skeptical, it's being nihilistic and obtuse.

I thought this was put really well.

It's pretty asanine to request 'proof' of the existance of anything on any planet we cannot physically reach. It's not like we have telescopes so damn awesome we can look past the dense atmospheres of many of these planets. Maybe once they establish a moon observatory, but that's at least 30-50 years away.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by worth

If there are an infinite number of universes, then there are an infinite number of possibilities for everything. There are an infinite number of you and me and we will carry out every possible timeline for our lives, which there are an infinite number of. In one parallel universe, I just died right now. Good thing it wasn't in this one.

For the most part, I understand the concept of having an infinite number of universes, but why is this always equated with infinite possibilities? Isn't it equally possible that the infinite number of universes are all exactly the same, or that the number of realities is some finite number between 1 and infinity? There's a finite number of particles in the universe, and a finite number of ways in which these particles can interact with one another.

In order for 'you' to exist in another universe, that means the history of our planet up until the point of your birth would have had to be identical in that other universe, and that means that in each of those universes, their formation was absolutely identical in order to lead to planet earth being exactly where it is with the identical conditions that lead to life forming at an identical time. So why, in one of these universes, would you suddenly die, if everything else about all these universes is completely identical?

[CaptainCrunch]

Yeah, the whole multidimensional thing is difficult, I mean imagine a universe without shrimp, or a universe that only has shrimp. . .

[photon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So why, in one of these universes, would you suddenly die, if everything else about all these universes is completely identical?

<can of worms>
Because the universe isn't deterministic.
</can of worms>

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by photon

<can of worms>
Because the universe isn't deterministic.
</can of worms>

Do we have any proof that the universe actually behaves in this non-deterministic way at anything greater than an atomic level?

[Sainters7]

I can't believe alot of people out there really think that with the millions upon millions(billions?) of planets out there, in the endless galaxies/solar systems, that we're the only planet that has intelligent life. It just sounds so self-centered and closed-minded.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I thought this was put really well.

It's pretty asanine to request 'proof' of the existance of anything on any planet we cannot physically reach. It's not like we have telescopes so damn awesome we can look past the dense atmospheres of many of these planets. Maybe once they establish a moon observatory, but that's at least 30-50 years away.

Seeing those other planets has nothing to do with dense atmospheres.
Hell, there's no way of knowing what kind of atmosphere's they have, if any at all.

The problem is the distances involved, and that's not something that any sort of moon observatory is going to fix.

[photon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Do we have any proof that the universe actually behaves in this non-deterministic way at anything greater than an atomic level?

Well atomic level events do influence macro events directly. He could drop dead because of a heart attack, where in a parallel universe the plaque molecules didn't happen to attach themselves to the artery or something.

Stuff like radioactivity and chemical reactions can have a huge influence on the macro world. In a parallel universe I was born a mutant.

Macro scale stuff can be chaotic as well, not really non-deterministic but maybe non-predictable is a better word. Stuff like the three body problem in gravity. Or chaos theory type stuff.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Seeing those other planets has nothing to do with dense atmospheres.
Hell, there's no way of knowing what kind of atmosphere's they have, if any at all.

The problem is the distances involved, and that's not something that any sort of moon observatory is going to fix.

Not entirely true.

The biggest deterrances to observing other planets in any sort of general detail (other than ones so far away we can only see gravitational or radio proof of their existance) is a) clouds (on earth and on their planets), b) reflected light, c) atmospheric interference.

All 3 of these can be negated by having a telescope in space (see: the hubble) but a sattelite telescope can only be so powerful. Having the ability to establish a full sized (optical) telescope (something like the LBT) on the moons surface would give us much greater optical detail into say, what's going on on Jupiter, but it sure as hell wouldn't let us see past all it's atmospheric gases/dust.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not entirely true.

The biggest deterrances to observing other planets in any sort of general detail (other than ones so far away we can only see gravitational or radio proof of their existance) is a) clouds (on earth and on their planets), b) reflected light, c) atmospheric interference.

All 3 of these can be negated by having a telescope in space (see: the hubble) but a sattelite telescope can only be so powerful. Having the ability to establish a full sized (optical) telescope (something like the LBT) on the moons surface would give us much greater optical detail into say, what's going on on Jupiter, but it sure as hell wouldn't let us see past all it's atmospheric gases/dust.

Okay, I thought you were talking about planets out of our solar system.
You said "Planets we can't reach", and we can reach all of the ones in our solar system, so I assumed you were talking about others.

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is about a moon observatory.
There's no way you could build something large enough to physically see extrasolar planets, and it still has no bearing on seeing say the surface of Venus.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Okay, I thought you were talking about planets out of our solar system.
You said "Planets we can't reach", and we can reach all of the ones in our solar system, so I assumed you were talking about others.

Either way, I'm not sure what your point is about a moon observatory.
There's no way you could build something large enough to physically see extrasolar planets, and it still has no bearing on seeing say the surface of Venus.

It was more in response to his comment about seeing 'ruins' and by extension, buildings and grids associated with civilized life, which could potentially be observed with a powerful enough optical telescope.

On the note have reaching planets in our solar system, we have actually only physically landed on a few, most have just been fly-bys.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It was more in response to his comment about seeing 'ruins' and by extension, buildings and grids associated with civilized life, which could potentially be observed with a powerful enough optical telescope.

On the note have reaching planets in our solar system, we have actually only physically landed on a few, most have just been fly-bys.

Fair enough, but building telescope large enough to actually see anything on a planet a few light years away would be enormously huge.

Hubble for example only has a resolution of ~110m for the moon, and that thing is about 2.5 meters across.
And the moon is what ~1 light second away?

So for a planet 1 light year away (which is implasubily close), even with a mirror 100km in diameter we could only resolve something that is ~ 85km in size. Not nearly big enough to make any sort of practicaly conclusions on any civilizations.

As for the flybys, that's not the point either.
Getting to the planets is the tough part, wether it's a flyby or a landing is irrelevant, we can get to them.

Anyway the point is moot.
I think we both agree that the original post saying that the article must be bunk becasue we'd have seen proof by now, is pretty out to lunch.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Sainters7

I can't believe alot of people out there really think that with the millions upon millions(billions?) of planets out there, in the endless galaxies/solar systems, that we're the only planet that has intelligent life. It just sounds so self-centered and closed-minded.

If are the only ones it sure is a waste of space.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Show me a fossil from another planet. Show me a single celled organism from another planet.

Possible we have seen one?.

"Unusual features found on a Martian meteorite may be those of fossilised alien bacteria after all, research suggests."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/277674.stm

[Mr.Coffee]

I guess I gotta ask HOW scientists "know" about a lot of this stuff. I'm sure they know a lot but...

do they just sit there counting stars? And then make a guess? How do they even know about the approx. size of the universe. Like honestly how big are these telescopes? It just seems a little fishy to me that they can make earnest predictions on numbers of stars and stuff.

This stuff, I'm sure, is a lot more complex than I'm giving it any credit here but how do they know the universe has boundaries or "multiverses" (mentioned in this thread) or that there's more stars than pebbles of sand and stuff.

Man I missed out on a lot of interesting science. Aren't a lot of these "knowns" still theories?