Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Every Star has a Planet

  • 11-01-2012 11:08pm
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,817 ✭✭✭✭


    According to this article - every star has a planet.

    Does this mean a major revision to the Drake Equation?

    Personally - I feel that's a major boost for the possibility of other life existing out there. Is that taking this too far?
    Tagged:


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    Makes Fermi paradox all the more puzzling.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    That drake equation irks me.

    Completely bunk science as far as I'm concerned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    Completely bunk science as far as I'm concerned.
    Its more of a thought experiment than an 'insert numbers here' formula.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    That drake equation irks me.

    Completely bunk science as far as I'm concerned.

    I think it's fair enough as far as it goes. Here is an equation composed of terms which we can't measure. As we can measure terms, we can narrow the question down a bit.

    The bunk comes when people say things like "since some of these numbers are very big, the result must be big". Well, no, because some of the other terms could be very small.

    The Fermi paradox is similar: "If there were long-lived technological civilizations in this part of the Galaxy, we would see them. So why don't we?"

    Because there aren't any. Simples.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,080 ✭✭✭✭Maximus Alexander


    Because there aren't any. Simples.

    That's not necessarily the only answer though. Using our own society as an example (which is a very small sample size!), as we become more advanced technologically, we also become harder to detect from a distance.

    There is far less waste energy now than there was in the 70s, for example. We are no longer broadcasting every radio and television signal into space. The more energy efficient we become, the harder we are to detect.

    So, another answer to that question would be that, unless other civilizations were actively trying to transmit something to us, we would be very unlikely to detect them, even if we had better equipment and were dedicating a large budget to doing so (which we are not). A lot of the efforts which have been made have looked for radio signals. We don't even use radio much anymore, and certainly wouldn't if we were trying to transmit messages across the galaxy.

    Perhaps other civilizations (if they exist) don't even want to be detected? Perhaps there are plenty of them out there beyond say 70 light years, in which case they would be unlikely to have detected us yet, even if they were trying to.

    There are plenty of ways to look at it. The truth is we just don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,564 ✭✭✭AugustusMinimus


    Gurgle wrote: »
    Its more of a thought experiment than an 'insert numbers here' formula.

    If only it was treated as such.

    The media and a lot of scientists who pander to the media seem to think it is much more than that.


Advertisement