Help
Sign In »
Register Now!
It stikes me that the one thing Drake forgot in making his equation is the moon and the stability it provides. Surley this must be factored into the equation as time is very much a factor in the evolution of life let alone intelligent life.
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net! We welcome science discussion at all levels — from beginners to researchers, covering topics from biology to computer science, and much more. Registration is fast and free, and allows you to post on the forums, so register now and join the discussions! After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
The drake equation.
Isn't it flawed?
Rate Topic:
#2
12 January 2012 - 02:36 PM
Tres Juicy 
Molecule
The Drake equation states that:
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
This post has been edited by Tres Juicy: 12 January 2012 - 02:38 PM
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
Reply
#3
12 January 2012 - 02:42 PM
dimreepr
Atom
Tres Juicy, on 12 January 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:
The Drake equation states that:
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
I did struggle with that question yes it does seem to but surely as the question is a search for intellegent life then a distinction should be made between the two.
- Posts: 279 | Joined: 29-November 11
- Reply
#4
12 January 2012 - 02:58 PM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
dimreepr, on 12 January 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:
I did struggle with that question yes it does seem to but surely as the question is a search for intellegent life then a distinction should be made between the two.
The distinction has been made already, when searching for intelligent life you must first find any old life. The steps are there in the equation
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
In other words, if you want to find intelligent life you won't find it where there is no life possible.
So step 1 is
Find the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Step 2 is
Look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (as there is no point looking at the ones that don't)
Step 3 is
Then look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#5
12 January 2012 - 03:40 PM
dimreepr
Atom
Tres Juicy, on 12 January 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:
The distinction has been made already, when searching for intelligent life you must first find any old life. The steps are there in the equation
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
In other words, if you want to find intelligent life you won't find it where there is no life possible.
So step 1 is
Find the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Step 2 is
Look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (as there is no point looking at the ones that don't)
Step 3 is
Then look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
In other words, if you want to find intelligent life you won't find it where there is no life possible.
So step 1 is
Find the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
Step 2 is
Look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point (as there is no point looking at the ones that don't)
Step 3 is
Then look at the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
Ok thanks. It was the fermi paradox that lead me to think that the equation needed an extra function to make the number more realistic wrong again.
- Posts: 279 | Joined: 29-November 11
- Reply
#6
12 January 2012 - 09:36 PM
Airbrush
Molecule
The Drake Equation is basically sound. The only things that will change are the values of each unknown. Drake and Carl Sagan were more optimistic that current scientific opinion. And Stephen Hawking pointed out we would be better off the numbers are lower. Encounters with superior intelligence will probably not be good for us. But then if we merely detect them very far away, hopefully they cannot find us and put us on their menu.
This post has been edited by Airbrush: 12 January 2012 - 09:37 PM
When in doubt, Wiki it out.
How do you dodge a bullet on your way to another star while traveling 12%C?
How do you dodge a bullet on your way to another star while traveling 12%C?
- Posts: 853 | Joined: 21-January 09
- Reply
#7
13 January 2012 - 08:29 AM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
Airbrush, on 12 January 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:
The Drake Equation is basically sound. The only things that will change are the values of each unknown. Drake and Carl Sagan were more optimistic that current scientific opinion. And Stephen Hawking pointed out we would be better off the numbers are lower. Encounters with superior intelligence will probably not be good for us. But then if we merely detect them very far away, hopefully they cannot find us and put us on their menu.
Any time that an advanced civilisation has encountered a less advanced one it has always been bad news for the latter...
That said, wouldn't it be interesting if they were close enought to communicate with but far enough away to be harmless?
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#8
13 January 2012 - 08:52 AM
DrRocket
Primate
Airbrush, on 12 January 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:
The Drake Equation is basically sound. The only things that will change are the values of each unknown. Drake and Carl Sagan were more optimistic that current scientific opinion. And Stephen Hawking pointed out we would be better off the numbers are lower. Encounters with superior intelligence will probably not be good for us. But then if we merely detect them very far away, hopefully they cannot find us and put us on their menu.
The Drake Equation is basically rubbish.
It is a product of rather obvious factors, not one of which are known or can be estimated on the basis of known scientific principles or available empirical data. Hence it has zero actual predictive power.
While some progress has been made in understanding star formation and in locating a few extra-solar planets the associated factors in the Drake equation can be at best educated guesses, the remaining factors (all of which much be known with precision for any useful prediction) are total mysteries. It makes for interesting science fiction, but is useless in real science.
- Posts: 1,571 | Joined: 09-February 11
- Reply
#9
13 January 2012 - 09:05 AM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
DrRocket, on 13 January 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:
The Drake Equation is basically rubbish.
It is a product of rather obvious factors, not one of which are known or can be estimated on the basis of known scientific principles or available empirical data. Hence it has zero actual predictive power.
While some progress has been made in understanding star formation and in locating a few extra-solar planets the associated factors in the Drake equation can be at best educated guesses, the remaining factors (all of which much be known with precision for any useful prediction) are total mysteries. It makes for interesting science fiction, but is useless in real science.
It is a product of rather obvious factors, not one of which are known or can be estimated on the basis of known scientific principles or available empirical data. Hence it has zero actual predictive power.
While some progress has been made in understanding star formation and in locating a few extra-solar planets the associated factors in the Drake equation can be at best educated guesses, the remaining factors (all of which much be known with precision for any useful prediction) are total mysteries. It makes for interesting science fiction, but is useless in real science.
The equation is sound if the variables are known
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#10
13 January 2012 - 09:11 AM
ajb
Physics Expert
Tres Juicy, on 13 January 2012 - 09:05 AM, said:
The equation is sound if the variables are known
I think that is DrRocket's point. The factors are not known and thus the Drake equation can not really make any solid predictions. One has to question if it is really any use.
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.
My homepage.
My homepage.
- Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
- Reply
#11
13 January 2012 - 09:23 AM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
ajb, on 13 January 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:
I think that is DrRocket's point. The factors are not known and thus the Drake equation can not really make any solid predictions. One has to question if it is really any use.
Yes, but if they became known - then the equation may be useful
I admit, they're not know and they're not likely to become known any time soon. So yes, completely useless
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#12
13 January 2012 - 09:46 AM
Ophiolite
Moderately Super
Everyone so far seems to be labouring under the common misunderstanding that the Drake equation was designed to predict the probable number of intelligent civilisations in the galaxy, or the universe. This misunderstanding eventually overtook Dr. Drake himself, but that was not its original intent. Drake created it to provide a simple framework or agenda for a meeting on extraterrestrial intelligence that he had organised at the Greenbank Observatory in the early 1960s. It was meant to lay out the sort of topics we would need to know more about if we were to be able, eventually, to assess probable numbers. To repeat, it was designed as an agenda, not a meaningful calculator. Therefore to call it rubbish is to fail to understand its purpose. To call its misuse rubbish, I could probably agree with.
Data ---> Information ---> Knowledge ---> Wisdom
Per Ardua ad Astra - Through difficulties, to the cinema.
Per Ardua ad Astra - Through difficulties, to the cinema.
- Posts: 3,035 | Joined: 10-October 04
- Reply
#13
13 January 2012 - 09:55 AM
ajb
Physics Expert
Ophiolite, on 13 January 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:
It was meant to lay out the sort of topics we would need to know more about if we were to be able, eventually, to assess probable numbers. To repeat, it was designed as an agenda, not a meaningful calculator.
My understanding is that the Drake equation was the first attempt to mathematically collate what would be involved in calculating the number of alien civilisations. It's biggest legacy is that it has got people interested in the real possibility of life elsewhere and set some scientific notion to SETI. This I thing agrees with your statements.
As a point of interest, does anyone know what numbers have been proposed?
"In physics you don't have to go around making trouble for yourself - nature does it for you" Frank Wilczek.
My homepage.
My homepage.
- Posts: 4,446 | Joined: 04-June 06
- Reply
#14
13 January 2012 - 12:48 PM
michel123456
Molecule
Tres Juicy, on 12 January 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:
The Drake equation states that:
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
where:
N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;and
R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
From wikipedia
Doesn't this cover it?
The equation misses something important: "the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible" is dependent from the physical capacities to communicate: distance & time. For example, if such a civilization existed 3 billion years ago anywhere in the universe, we cannot communicate. If a civilization will exist here on Earth a million year from now, we cannot communicate. If a civilization happens to exist today 25 billion light years away, we cannot communicate. If you think about it, there may exist-haveexisted-willexist an incommensurable amount of civilizations and still be unable to communicate.
--------------------
in order to be able to observe such a civilization (observe, not communicate), it must be in our observational range: that is at such a distance & time where d=ct
with c=SOL
This post has been edited by michel123456: 13 January 2012 - 12:53 PM
Michel
- Posts: 2,899 | Joined: 28-November 09
- Reply
#15
13 January 2012 - 12:51 PM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
michel123456, on 13 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:
The equation misses something important: "the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible" is dependent from the physical capacities to communicate: distance & time. For example, if such a civilization existed 3 billion years ago anywhere in the universe, we cannot communicate. If a civilization will exist here on Earth a million year from now, we cannot communicate. If a civilization happens to exist today 25 billion light years away, we cannot communicate. If you think about, there may exist-haveexisted-willexist an incommensurable amount of civilizations and still be unable to communicate.
No, it's right here
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#16
13 January 2012 - 02:59 PM
michel123456
Molecule
Tres Juicy, on 13 January 2012 - 12:51 PM, said:
No, it's right here
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
I don't understand it the same way.
Quote
[b]fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
that is this civilization that knows about EM radiations or other technology that we know also about. such a civilization 3BLY away is not able to communicate with us.
Quote
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space
this same civilization 3BLY away released detectable radio signs for a thousand years, so what? it is still not possible to communicate.
This post has been edited by michel123456: 13 January 2012 - 03:03 PM
Michel
- Posts: 2,899 | Joined: 28-November 09
- Reply
#17
13 January 2012 - 03:08 PM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
michel123456, on 13 January 2012 - 02:59 PM, said:
I don't understand it the same way.
that is this civilization that knows about EM radiations or other technology that we know also about. such a civilization 3BLY away is not able to communicate with us.
this same civilization 3BLY away released detectable radio signs for a thousand years, so what? it is still not possible to communicate.
that is this civilization that knows about EM radiations or other technology that we know also about. such a civilization 3BLY away is not able to communicate with us.
this same civilization 3BLY away released detectable radio signs for a thousand years, so what? it is still not possible to communicate.
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
The key is in the use of the word "detectable"
If they are 3bn light years away, they won't be detectable by us
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#18
13 January 2012 - 03:52 PM
michel123456
Molecule
Tres Juicy, on 13 January 2012 - 03:08 PM, said:
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
The key is in the use of the word "detectable"
If they are 3bn light years away, they won't be detectable by us
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[3]
The key is in the use of the word "detectable"
If they are 3bn light years away, they won't be detectable by us
Yes and no.
Detection is one thing. Communication is different. We can detect dinosaurs, we cannot communicate with dinosaurs.
------------------
edit
And I think "detectable" can be understood as "a mean of communication that we could detect like scripture or radio frequency", not necessarily inside our range.
This post has been edited by michel123456: 13 January 2012 - 03:55 PM
Michel
- Posts: 2,899 | Joined: 28-November 09
- Reply
#19
13 January 2012 - 04:05 PM
Tres Juicy
Molecule
michel123456, on 13 January 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:
Yes and no.
Detection is one thing. Communication is different. We can detect dinosaurs, we cannot communicate with dinosaurs.
------------------
edit
And I think "detectable" can be understood as "a mean of communication that we could detect like scripture or radio frequency", not necessarily inside our range.
Detection is one thing. Communication is different. We can detect dinosaurs, we cannot communicate with dinosaurs.
------------------
edit
And I think "detectable" can be understood as "a mean of communication that we could detect like scripture or radio frequency", not necessarily inside our range.
Which is why time is an issue - obviously if they stopped producing detectable signals 100000 years ago then we can't communicate with them.
However, the equation deals only with their detection and therefore does not care whether we could communicate with them or not
A fencing instructor named Fisk
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
In duels was terribly brisk
So much that in action
The Fitzgerald contraction
Reduced his foil to a disk
Like all good science, I pose more questions than I answer
Spoiler
- Posts: 635 | Joined: 01-December 11
- Reply
#20
14 January 2012 - 04:40 PM
dimreepr
Atom
Tres Juicy, on 13 January 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:
Which is why time is an issue - obviously if they stopped producing detectable signals 100000 years ago then we can't communicate with them.
However, the equation deals only with their detection and therefore does not care whether we could communicate with them or not
However, the equation deals only with their detection and therefore does not care whether we could communicate with them or not
So isn't this the extra function the equation needs. Time in terms of the intellegent life to have time to devolope technology to send the signal and the disconect of the relative time frame?
- Posts: 279 | Joined: 29-November 11
- Reply
