[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 16 KB, 320x240, asdds_0012.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265478 No.3265478 [Reply] [Original]

What are the actual scientific chances of there being intelligent life somewhere else in the universe?

>> No.3265490

Bought tree fiddy?

As in our time or as in the entire time of the universe?

Both likely but odds of actual contact are zip

>> No.3265489

Wasn't there some silly ecuation estimating actuall probability for a planet to have sentient life in it?

>> No.3265497

Drake equation

>> No.3265506

Probable.

Discovery or contact with said life is not probable.

>>3265489

The Drake Equation. However it is no way scientific and is just a series of presuppositions.

>> No.3265510 [DELETED] 

>>3265478
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
considering the astronomical size of the universe (geddit?) i think that it is very likely that there is, it just might be extremely far away. so much so that we will never know of them.

>> No.3265520

Science isn't the sort of thing where it sets "actual scientific chances." Doing a hard Bayesian calculation requires requires a fairly precise appraisal of your information.

That said, the general consensus is "probably." The Drake Equation has extremely wide error bars, but in so far as you're concerned with the question of is there ANY intelligent life ANYWHERE else in the universe, even the Rare Earth people have to concede that the universe is a big place.

>> No.3265521

100%.

>> No.3265524

>>3265510
>implying theres not intelligent life in our galaxy or nearby galaxies

huehuehuehue

>> No.3265531

>>3265490
I believe that our first contact with an alien species will be similar to their first contact with us. Some random probe or something will show up.
But that is in the unlikely event that it can pass great distances without slamming into something bigger.
I still hold out hope for actual contact.
But that's because I'm mentally unstable.

>> No.3265540

Slightly unrelated, but while at it ...

How do astronomers and such guide themselves in the universe?

That is, what is their reference system? Like in a map, I have meridians and such, what do people who look at the stars and think "oh, this just might be ravagin our asses in the next 50 years".

If the universe is my R3 space, where would the origin be?

>> No.3265554

Define "intelligent".

This is, unwittingly, an extremely anthropocentric question.

>> No.3265556

>>3265478
When you consider the size of the universe, and given what we know of how life began on Earth, the odds of life being elsewhere in the universe are very likely.

>> No.3265559

>>3265531
>the unlikely event that it can pass great distances without slamming into something bigger.

I don't think you quite understand just how vast and empty space is. Even the most monstrously huge stars take up negligible space compared to the distances between them. Slamming into something IS the unlikely event.

>>3265540
>where would the origin be?

...Earth? It's not like the universe itself has a center.

>> No.3265561

Is this probability on life-forms human-like? (as in 3D sentient beings of awesome and magic) or some spiritual probability that we might as well never come in contact with, but still account as sentient life?

What I'm trying to say is, to the general concensus, what is "life"?

>> No.3265571

>>3265561

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life#Biology

>> No.3265570

>>3265540
I'm illiterate. What do you mean by "R3 space?"
I googled it and got many different things. I'm here to learn (lol4chan), so any help would be nice.

>> No.3265574

>>3265561
Any sort of intelligent physical being composed of carbon.

By intelligent i mean self aware, conscious, and if advanced enough wondering the same thing

>> No.3265579

>>3265559
Yeah, I realized what I had typed after I submitted it. I feel retarded right now. I'm definitely sleepy.
Disregard my cocks.

>> No.3265583

All this big talk makes me kind of wonder why the fuck i dwell on such trivial things as talking to a girl

:|

>> No.3265586

Pretty fucking good.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth%27s_Location_in_the_Universe_%28JPEG%29.jpg

>> No.3265588
File: 98 KB, 800x565, 800px-Pioneer_plaque_sun.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265588

>>3265540
Perhaps not quite what you are asking, but the "pioneer plaque" used pulsars to triangulate the position of our star in space and time. Pulsars could be further used for navigational systems aboard spacecraft.

In the image is the Pioneer Plaque

>> No.3265590

>>3265570

I assume he means <span class="math">\mathbb{R}^3[/spoiler] ie ordinary Euclidean space and the coordinate system of height width and depth. (Of course as we all know spacetime is curved, but on astronomical scales it's close enough.)

>> No.3265608

>>3265570
A three dimensional (or euclidean) space defined by whatever means you wish to define it. A point in that space would require 3 values to be defined: (x,y,z)

Therefore, an R3 system's origin would be 0,0,0 (unless you decide to change it to something, for whatever reason)

Seriously, if you want to lean about it, I can't suggest it fucking enough. Euclidean geometry has to be the most used shit in anybody's lifetime. It's also pretty intro-level, so you will find shitloads of places explaining it in detail

>> No.3265633

>>3265586
I fucking hate those pictures ... it makes my penis feel inadecuate.

>> No.3265658

>>3265586
I never realized the milky way was such a massive clusterfuck.

Any speculation on what the fuck is going on at its center? I guess kind of a massive rapefuck provided by your friendgravity, but I can't figure out how could light come of of it.

>> No.3265662

>>3265540
Wouldn't the reference point be the star of whatever system you're in?
As in; If you're 19 degrees above the equator of a star, this is up.
If you're 19 degrees below, this is down.
Port and starboard can be assign as Port being away from the star while starboard is towards a star.

Is this what you're asking, OP?

>> No.3265669
File: 1.01 MB, 500x500, milky way nucleus.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3265669

>>3265658
>Any speculation on what the fuck is going on at its center?

You mean aside from the really, really big black hole?

>> No.3265674

>>3265669
But should such massive asshole just suck all the life and, thus, make the center a rapist ideal living place?

>> No.3265687

>>3265674
>shouldn't
>suck light.

Sorry about that derp

>> No.3265692

>>3265608
>>3265590
>ask question that seems stupid
>get rational answers

I love you guys. Thanks for the help. I'm a mathtard, so this was very interesting. I need to learn some of that Euclidean Geometry. So I can convince my grandma that pi does NOT equal 3, like she read in this book this one time.

>> No.3265705

where does stuff that gets sucked into a black hole go?

or is it just a region of space thats really dark and nobody can see that shit

>> No.3265717

>>3265669

Black holes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners. They don't stop all the stars and highly energetic matter orbiting them from shining.

Things only disappear if they cross the event horizon, which despite the black hole's mass is utterly miniscule compared to how huge the galaxy is.

>> No.3265725

>>3265717

Just how massive is "massive black hole" in this case?

>> No.3265744

>>3265705
It rapes, my friend. It takes whatever gets trapped in the event horizon and stretches it.
You know that wafer thin ham you have in sandwiches?
It's fucking thinner than that.
>>3265674
Black holes can only absorb a certain amount of mass or energy before they begin to spew it back out as radiation.

>> No.3265756

what's the scientific opinion on consciousness and regaining it after death somehow through the recycling of energy etc

>> No.3265759

>>3265705
>where does stuff that gets sucked into a black hole go?

Nothing gets "sucked in". It might fall in the same way debris might fall into a star or planet.

We suppose it falls into whatever mass lies at the center of the black hole (the event horizon is not a physical thing, it's just the point at which gravity is so strong that escape velocity exceeds c). It's impossible to ever know for sure or even what that central mass actually is because no information can ever leave the event horizon of a black hole.

>>3265725

It has a mass equal to around four million suns. The event horizon is around 13.5 billion KM across, which is terrifyingly huge yet completely negligible compared to the 100,000 light year diameter of the galaxy.

>>3265744
>Black holes can only absorb a certain amount of mass or energy before they begin to spew it back out as radiation.

That's not how it works at all. The matter spewing away from a black hole never actually crosses the event horizon. It's fortunate enough to have its orbit sufficiently accelerated by gravity and collisions that it achieves escape velocity before escape becomes impossible. Gigantic particle and x-ray jets around active black holes are a result of this.

>> No.3265768

>>3265759
What's Hawkins Radiation then?

>> No.3265769

>>3265759
Exactly. This is why anything that falls into a black hole lets off a burst of radiation.

>> No.3265771

>>3265756
I did not understand this question.

>> No.3265776

>>3265725
At least 100k solar masses.

>> No.3265779

>>3265768

That happens all the time and actually occurs more slowly the larger the black hole gets. It's also not energetic enough to be seen at great distances like an incandescent accretion disk or x-ray jet.

>> No.3265790

>>3265759
I concede, I used an overly simplistic explanation that barely covered what it needed to.
You're absolutely right and I suggest we call this a day before the thread cascades into theories on quantum tunnelling.

>> No.3265791

>>3265768

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Really weird shit is what it is. The radiation comes from quantum vacuum fluctuations at the event horizon's edge and doesn't actually come out of the black hole itself.

The black hole actually pulls in a "negative" quantity of energy and shrinks.

>>3265790

:3

>> No.3265797

>what this thread has turned into
>OP's face

-> :O

>> No.3265801

Anyone who doesnt think there is life elswhere in the universe is an idiot? You think that there is no other planet in the entire universe the same distance from the sun with water on it, and roughly the same elements?

>> No.3265811

>>3265801
>implying those exact conditions are what's needed to live
>mfw billions of galaxies housing billions of solar systems

>> No.3265814

100%, it can just be some bacteria but its still life on another planet.

>> No.3265816

>>3265801
And that's even implying that life needs our planets exact makeup to succeed. Even with our narrow scope of life we can see how diverse and adaptable it is. We don't yet know if life has to be carbon based or if it just happened because our solar system is carbon rich. There could be life fucking everywhere that's based on whatever happens to be abundant in its locale.

>> No.3265818

>>3265801
Dude, we're discussing particle/antiparticle quantum tunnelling now.
Pay attention.

>> No.3265830

>>3265816

Abundance isn't the deciding factor. Earth has vastly more silicon than carbon, yet look what happened.

Might have something to do with SiO2 being a bitch to expel as waste.

>> No.3265832

>>3265801
>You use Sun as a generic star name.
Fuck you. And pay attention...

>> No.3265851

99.999%

The universe is large.

>> No.3265924

100%

>> No.3265929

>>3265851
>99.999%

Why would you say that?
You are either sure, or not sure. You can't be 99.999% sure because that's being not sure.

>> No.3265940

>>3265929
I'm not the guy you are replying to, but study how large the universe is and then tell me we can't be absolutely certain that there is other life active out there in the universe.

Life on our planet occurred naturally.

We already know of other planets which are similar to our own in our own galaxy.

We are not special.

>> No.3266354

approaching certainty.

>> No.3266364

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_surely