News Proof of Aliens Could Come Within 25 Years, Scientist Says

[garyw]

O-F Staff Note: Please keep the discussion ON TOPIC. Thanks very much.

 

[dougkeenan]

How do we really know Martins is not an alien?

 

[Artlav]

How do we really know Martins is not an alien?

Roll a dice?

 

[Izack]

Roll a dice?

I once had a d20 tell me my name was Spartacus... :hide:

EDIT: Hey, point-in-fact, actually. You may as well roll a d10 for fraction values in Drake's equation, and you won't change its accuracy (its precision, maybe, but not accuracy.)

 

[River Crab]

A little slow, but this is my first XKCD citation, so what the heck:

I think this could really be what we're doing. Anyway, there's still no breaking news on ET discovery. Short-lived breaking hype, maybe.

 

[Lucy]

Yeah, my opinion on SETI for a while now has evaluated to about the same - We may be looking in the right places, but for the wrong kind of things.

 

[IgnoreThisBarrel]

For all we know aliens could be spacefaring non-cellular life with an IQ of 5492.

 

[jedidia]

Never said that this was "evidence" for my theory;

My apologies, then. It seemed the only logical reason why you'd bring a source in connection with aliens that has nothing to do with them.

But even today aliens coming from an unusual direction (i.e. not from flying saucers landing in cities or giant spacegoing WTF peeling ISS) would likely be perceived as something supernatural and worth of worship or anti-worship.

Well, the opposite also seems to be the case: a genuine supernatural expierience might get mistaken for extraterrestrial activity, depending on the mindset of the witness. Unless someone comes and says "take me to your leader" we can't really be sure...

 

[johan]

A little slow, but this is my first XKCD citation, so what the heck:

I think this could really be what we're doing. Anyway, there's still no breaking news on ET discovery. Short-lived breaking hype, maybe.

This is why I find the whole debate slightly tiresome (although it certainly is interesting to watch people's reactions, and just how emotive this debate is).

My point is this: We don't know what we don't know.

Why can't everybody (including the scientists) just... admit that we don't know? :idk: It's the sort of thing that makes me question people's credibility.

 

[Lucy]

Scientists do admit that we don't know. That's why we do science at all - if we thought (as a species anyway) that we knew everything about science, we wouldn't do any experiments any more.

 

[jedidia]

although it certainly is interesting to watch people's reactions, and just how emotive this debate is

The emotive part of the debate wasn't about the existance of extraterrestrials per se. For most, it was about wheather or not extraterrestrials VISITED the earth. For me, it was simply that I was annoyed seeing someone trying to split wood with a duck (i.e. using something completely out of context), and incidentaly with a duck I'm rather fond of.

I have no problem whatsoever with the existance or non-existance or visitations or non-visitations of extraterrestrial, I just can't stand bad theology. Maybe I should open a blog and get sued by Phil Plait for copycating...:lol:

 

[Urwumpe]

Why can't everybody (including the scientists) just... admit that we don't know? :idk: It's the sort of thing that makes me question people's credibility.

I have no problem with "I don't know. Yet". I have a problem with "because you don't know, my wild guesses are as valid as scientific theories and careful research".

There is a difference between your "I don't know" and a scientists "I don't know". A good scientist is able to quantify his margin of error. Of course scientists can luckily be wrong, but when they will be wrong, they will be less wrong than you can be. Science is ideally self-correcting (in reality, it is not always working like that, but the truth wins eventually all the time), can you be it too? Can you learn something new, and can you correct your knowledge? Can you tell how unreliable your knowledge is or are you able to put your knowledge to the test every day?

That all is science. Even the oldest and most accepted experiments are worth to be replicated with better measurement technology. The worst that can happen is, that you discover a flaw in a old, accepted theory. Which means more work for you and other scientists to get a better theory for the measurements.

 

[NukeET]

http://xkcd.com/384/

Sorry couldn't resist..

I've never bought any results of "N" based on the inherent assumptions based on ALL of the variables. "N" can be anything one desires...biased by one's worldview.

I've always suspected that there was a missing variable...thank for the link!

 

[Keatah]

Limited intellect at the time? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think human intelligence has changed over the last ~2000 years...

Really? Society is being dumbed-down on a daily basis these days. What with all the advertising and bad food additives and diluted entertainment offerings.. you can see my point!

 

[Orbinaut Pete]

BBC News: "Alien hunters 'should look for artificial intelligence'".

 

[T.Neo]

I think even depictions of our own developments of artificial intelligence are woefully fanciful, and we have absolutely no clue as to how an alien species would behave in terms of society or psychology. :dry:

Really? Society is being dumbed-down on a daily basis these days. What with all the advertising and bad food additives and diluted entertainment offerings.. you can see my point!

I was referring to us being more intelligent than our ancestors.

Just because there's a brain drain in terms of popular culture, doesn't mean that actual intelligence is dropping. Yes, there will always be stupid people, and often they're going to appear more numerous due to the simple fact that they make more noise.

Recently though I've been wondering how detectable advanced civilisations would be at all. N in the Drake equation is how many communicating civilisations there are out there, but what dictates that an industrial, or even an advanced, interplanetary or interstellar civilisation would intend to communicate with potential aliens, or that they'd communicate using the methods we've been searching for? And what dictates that they'd want to communicate with potential aliens like ourselves? Life around G-type stars? Impossible, they're too shortlived and radiate too much UV...

And the sky is also really big, it could be really easy to miss even a relatively long message. I think the only way of really making sure someone picks something up is to keep blaring the same message at them over and over and over, so that in the event that they point their telescopes at you they'll pick something up.

Maybe the key would be to detect the power outputs of some of the more powerful devices that could be used in advanced societies, like the bright exhaust streams of high-power propulsion systems, or the radio screams of magnetic parachutes. How detectable would those things be, and how easy would they be to miss?

 

[garyw]

Life around G-type stars? Impossible, they're too shortlived and radiate too much UV...

Unless said life used the radiation as an energy source.

And the sky is also really big, it could be really easy to miss even a relatively long message. I think the only way of really making sure someone picks something up is to keep blaring the same message at them over and over and over, so that in the event that they point their telescopes at you they'll pick something up.

If they want to communicate. If they have the power to blast out a signal. Better yet would be a beacon at the gravitational focus of the star. They requires a lot of technological know how and a willingness to communicate.

Maybe the key would be to detect the power outputs of some of the more powerful devices that could be used in advanced societies, like the bright exhaust streams of high-power propulsion systems, or the radio screams of magnetic parachutes. How detectable would those things be, and how easy would they be to miss?

Assuming they HAVE those devices or use them that way.

The problem with looking for an advanced alien intelligence is that we only have one societies technological evolution to deal with so assumptions are made as to what technology an alleged advanced alien race would have and that they would want to be found. These assumptions may well be wrong.

We are better off looking in our own solar system for Bracewell probes.

 

[N_Molson]

The first thing to do would be to build detection devices far away from Earth, to minimize interferences. I guess that even the Moon would be too close, Mars or some jovian moon could probably be well-suited. Remote bodies like Pluto would be even better.

Or launch a network of Probes in solar orbit, carrying antennas like the ones they use in SETI.

But we're far from that level of technology. And that's a variable that could be added. The more "advanced" we are, the more chances we have to detect something.

Searching for an extraterrestrial life is not a new thing. Before we sent probes to Mars and Venus, intelligent life on these planets was seen as a possibility. When the first telescopes were built and were pointed at Mars, scientists and philosophers saw what they wanted to see : canals, a proof of life on Mars. On the Moon, the crack lines that radiate from the Tycho crater were often seen as roads.

If we get back to the Antiquity, the ancients called those black spots on the Moon "mare", seas. We tend to see what we want to see, and that something we have to remind. Even the brightest scientists can be subject to that.

The other lesson of history is that technology allowed us to see always farther. From the naked eye, we went to Hubble. Next step is the James Webb Telescope. There will be many other, I'm sure.

 

[garyw]

The first thing to do would be to build detection devices far away from Earth, to minimize interferences. I guess that even the Moon would be too close, Mars or some jovian moon could probably be well-suited. Remote bodies like Pluto would be even better.

A good starting place would be the rear of the moon. All that lovely rock would shield you from the radio noise of Earth. You'd get some awesome radio astronomy done there and could have a SETI environment as well.

Pluto would be perfect for an infrared imaging telescope. it's so cold on Pluto that you should be able to detect the faint heat coming from extrasolar planets and be able to analyse the atmosphere and, if it's big enough, directly image the planet.

 

[T.Neo]

Unless said life used the radiation as an energy source.

Photosynthesis on Earth primarily uses red and blue light to perform photosynthesis AFAIK, not UV light.

If they want to communicate. If they have the power to blast out a signal. Better yet would be a beacon at the gravitational focus of the star. They requires a lot of technological know how and a willingness to communicate.

How powerful does a signal have to be though? Does it have to be some sort of planetary-scale thing, or would a signal from a device like the Aricebo array suffice?

Assuming they HAVE those devices or use them that way.

The problem with looking for an advanced alien intelligence is that we only have one societies technological evolution to deal with so assumptions are made as to what technology an alleged advanced alien race would have and that they would want to be found. These assumptions may well be wrong.

I'm not saying that advanced civilisations would have that technology, just that if they did, it might be worth looking out for.

Some things put out a lot of energy by means of their operation, which could make them visible over long distances.

It's true that we only have one example of society's technological development, and it doesn't go past the present (we don't have examples of human-constructed fusion propelled spacecraft or magnetic parachutes, for example), so of course we can't predict what sort of technology an alien civilisation would use. But that doesn't mean that certain technological concepts could not arise.

We are better off looking in our own solar system for Bracewell probes.

I think the statistics of such a probe existing within our own system are staggeringly low, compared to potentially detectable emissions or even intentional transmissions.

But there isn't any harm in looking, other than a few million dollars for a mission budget and maybe a few kilograms of xenon...