“What we didn’t know five years ago is that perhaps 10 to 20 per cent of stars around us have Earth-size planets in the habitable zone,” added Mountain. “It’s within our grasp to pull off a discovery that will change the world forever.”
Describing their own estimates as “conservative,” the NASA planet hunters calculate that 100 million worlds within the Milky Way galaxy are able to sustain complex alien life forms. The estimate accounts for the 17 billion Earth-sized worlds scientists believe to be orbiting the galaxy’s 100 billion stars.
The NASA panel says that ground-based and space-based technology – including the Hubble Space Telescope, the Kepler Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope – will be able to determine the presence of liquid water, an essential sign of potential alien life.
Very exciting, though I always get a little wary when statements like that are made. Course, you would think NASA would know their stuff.
I just wonder how we would be able to observe/study these planets close enough to find life? The article says telescope technology, kinda vague.
Most likely via chemical spectra; determining the chemicals in the atmosphere and finding ones that have chemical signatures that run counter to a natural process.
An atmosphere with oxygen and methane at habitable zone temperatures means something has to be replenishing those gasses otherwise the oxygen would react with the methane (or almost anything else, oxygen is super reactive).
Or directly imaging the planet and finding the planet (or parts of the planet if we ever get that kind of detail) the exact colour optimal for photosynthesis on that planet (combination of star and atmosphere etc).
Or I guess a surface feature clearly artificial, Alistair Reynolds did that in one of his series, a clearly artificial feature was carved into the face of a planet to get the attention of anyone looking.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Eventually it could , probably not a single telescope but an optical array of telescopes similar to the Very Large Array. Imagine a hundred or even thousands of Hubbles spaced out the size of the earth orbit. Possible even with today's tech, though pretty expensive.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Eventually it could , probably not a single telescope but an optical array of telescopes similar to the Very Large Array. Imagine a hundred or even thousands of Hubbles spaced out the size of the earth orbit. Possible even with today's tech, though pretty expensive.
Would putting telescopes in the orbits of different planets make a difference? Or is the distance between say here and Mars or Jupiter so negligable that it would be a wasted effort?
It's crazy to think that we're expecting the first life that Nasa finds to be a pretty primative species.
It would be pretty surreal if, when they start closely observing these planets, they find say some sort of artificial infrastructure around the planet that signifies that there is not only other life in the universe, but that it's also more advanced then us.
I wonder how the world would react knowing that we are 100%, not the most dominant species out there anymore. I think we would panic.
It's crazy to think that we're expecting the first life that Nasa finds to be a pretty primative species.
It would be pretty surreal if, when they start closely observing these planets, they find say some sort of artificial infrastructure around the planet that signifies that there is not only other life in the universe, but that it's also more advanced then us.
I wonder how the world would react knowing that we are 100%, not the most dominant species out there anymore. I think we would panic.
Yeah it would be interesting to see how major religious leaders and followers react to that type of knowledge (not they have been easily convinced by science before).
My personal thoughts are that any civilization that has progressed much beyond where we are now would have to beyond something as primative as war and wouldn't be overly concerned about an attempt at contact. but maybe that's optimistic.
It's crazy to think that we're expecting the first life that Nasa finds to be a pretty primative species.
It would be pretty surreal if, when they start closely observing these planets, they find say some sort of artificial infrastructure around the planet that signifies that there is not only other life in the universe, but that it's also more advanced then us.
I wonder how the world would react knowing that we are 100%, not the most dominant species out there anymore. I think we would panic.
I sometimes imagine how things would go over if, upon proclaiming that we have discovered life elsewhere and that they are within our universe, the newly-discovered party remarks that it knew about us all along and then says, "by the way, what do you mean by us being in your universe?"
Would putting telescopes in the orbits of different planets make a difference? Or is the distance between say here and Mars or Jupiter so negligable that it would be a wasted effort?
The bigger the baseline the bigger the effective "mirror", but the weaker it is too (since the amount of light gathered only goes up by increasing the # of scopes, not by the distance between them).
I'm unsure of the details of what amount of light gathering would be effective with respect to the baseline.
As for in orbit of other planets, if we could make the scopes big enough (or have enough of them), then having them around Mars or Jupiter would be even better, but it requires super high levels of stability, something I don't even know if we'd be capable of at this point. I don't think they'd be able to orbit planets at all, they'd have to be at Lagrange points or something.
There's a cool video on the wiki page for Interferometry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferometry), but it also mentions that for just a 100m baseline they needed 0.5 µm stability, I can't imagine what would be needed for a baseline of hundreds of billions of m. If the two scopes can't move with relation to each other smaller than the width of a proton.. lol I guess there'd be a practical limit to the size
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Tracks found in B.C. suggest Tyrannosaurs hunted in packs
Quote:
At a remote cliffside in eastern British Columbia, a team of scientists has uncovered the preserved footprints of three tyrannosaurs – large meat-eating dinosaurs – all heading in the same direction.
Because the prints were made under similar conditions, researchers say, there’s a good chance the creatures were walking together, a sight that would surely strike fear in any time traveller that happened on the scene.
It's crazy to think that we're expecting the first life that Nasa finds to be a pretty primative species.
It would be pretty surreal if, when they start closely observing these planets, they find say some sort of artificial infrastructure around the planet that signifies that there is not only other life in the universe, but that it's also more advanced then us.
I wonder how the world would react knowing that we are 100%, not the most dominant species out there anymore. I think we would panic.
Another question is, if we can see them, then they very surely would know of our existence and why haven't they made contact?? Or have they...dun dun dunnnnn
A 100 million worlds has me at attention, If thats true chances are we are far from the most advanced.
Not Really, think of it this way IF they are right. They are saying they believe 0.03% of stars host planets that contain life.
Just as a thought experiment. Lets be aggressive say 5% of those have evolved beyond bacteria, into something like Plants and Amobea. Down to 5 million, ~ 1 billion years ago
Then you look at the same 5% might have complex animal life, you are down to. a 1/4 million. ~600 million years ago on earth
Then if you look at the same 5% having life that has developed, manufactured tools or clothing or selective breading or agriculture. Something that shows long term thinking, Your down to 12,500. ~18,000 years ago
Then if you look at 5% of that developing writing, something that allows passage of knowledge, science and math, you are down to 650. ~6000 years ago
Is there a chance we are the most developed of 650 planets that have developed Math and Science, maybe, maybe not.
I could see my line of thinking being completely wrong because of Moores Law normally used with computers, but seems work just as well if you look at evolution.
Not Really, think of it this way IF they are right. They are saying they believe 0.03% of stars host planets that contain life.
Just as a thought experiment. Lets be aggressive say 5% of those have evolved beyond bacteria, into something like Plants and Amobea. Down to 5 million, ~ 1 billion years ago
Then you look at the same 5% might have complex animal life, you are down to. a 1/4 million. ~600 million years ago on earth
Then if you look at the same 5% having life that has developed, manufactured tools or clothing or selective breading or agriculture. Something that shows long term thinking, Your down to 12,500. ~18,000 years ago
Then if you look at 5% of that developing writing, something that allows passage of knowledge, science and math, you are down to 650. ~6000 years ago
Is there a chance we are the most developed of 650 planets that have developed Math and Science, maybe, maybe not.
I could see my line of thinking being completely wrong because of Moores Law normally used with computers, but seems work just as well if you look at evolution.
Not Really, think of it this way IF they are right. They are saying they believe 0.03% of stars host planets that contain life.
Just as a thought experiment. Lets be aggressive say 5% of those have evolved beyond bacteria, into something like Plants and Amobea. Down to 5 million, ~ 1 billion years ago
Then you look at the same 5% might have complex animal life, you are down to. a 1/4 million. ~600 million years ago on earth
Then if you look at the same 5% having life that has developed, manufactured tools or clothing or selective breading or agriculture. Something that shows long term thinking, Your down to 12,500. ~18,000 years ago
Then if you look at 5% of that developing writing, something that allows passage of knowledge, science and math, you are down to 650. ~6000 years ago
Is there a chance we are the most developed of 650 planets that have developed Math and Science, maybe, maybe not.
I could see my line of thinking being completely wrong because of Moores Law normally used with computers, but seems work just as well if you look at evolution.
You are assuming we are amongst the most developed. We could very well be extremely primitive and be grouped amongst the middle. There could very well be societies that have existed that are hundreds or thousands of times more advanced. There may even be life that we wouldn't even recognize using our definition of it.
One of the biggest variables in discovering other life is having that other life form exist in the same window of time as us so that we can actually communicate with each other. Thousands, even millions of other intelligent life forms could have existed over the the last 13 billion years, but we have only been able to listen for them for about 75 of those years. And that is assuming they will use radio waves for communication.
These other life forms could very well be extinct now, or have evolved past a physical form, and are now on a plane of existence we are not compatible, or intelligent enough to communicate with. Or their technology could be so different, we haven't yet discovered the method they are using.
Having observable proof that alien life existed would be so freakin' awesome just to see the reaction from various religions...
"Well the garden of eden is actually a metaphor for the galaxy..."
riiiiight
Except that the best religions don't even try to put that much thought into it. They insist their 6000 year old texts are true. There's no symbolism or metaphor there.
It would be more along the lines of:
'The creator created these other planets as a test to our faith. We must believe in the word of God as it is written.'
Oh trust me, I'd like to see that more than most. But it won't change things in religion. They'll continue justifying their existence somehow, as they have through the last 1000 years of scientific progress. True change will come slow, as it has, with people leaving the various churches and faiths. Not with any big changes within them.
