dimreepr Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) 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? Edited January 12, 2012 by Tres Juicy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 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? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 12, 2012 Author Share Posted January 12, 2012 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 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 12, 2012 Share Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited January 12, 2012 by Airbrush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. The equation is sound if the variables are known Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) 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? 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 Edited January 13, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) 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] I don't understand it the same way. 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. 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. Edited January 13, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) 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 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. Edited January 13, 2012 by michel123456 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 13, 2012 Share Posted January 13, 2012 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. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 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 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Appolinaria Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 I never understood this equation. It's too simple... Something's not right. Hah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 I never understood this equation. It's too simple... Something's not right. Hah. I would never say simple it's function's pretty much cover it and may still do but it's deffinately not laughable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tres Juicy Posted January 14, 2012 Share Posted January 14, 2012 How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity. We haven't though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted January 14, 2012 Author Share Posted January 14, 2012 (edited) How long would it take an advanced ET intelligence to come to the conclusion that they gain nothing by broadcasting their location to all listeners? I would think they go stealth not long after they reach our level of technical capacity. sort of my point please read the last post of page 1 this guy has almost hyjacked the post by pushing it into a 2nd page. (edit) Sorry airbrush I thought I was replying to appolinaria Edited January 14, 2012 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now