Do you think ET life exists elsewhere?

[ISamson]

Hello.
Recently looking through the numerous articles on space.com I came across the interesting news that a few months ago a team has sent a 'message' to the GJ 273 system 12 light years away.

Though the message was designed to provoke a response from the hypothetical denizens of GJ 273b, the main goal in sending the communication involved laying a foundation for the future, said team member Douglas Vakoch, president of METI (Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence) International, a San Francisco-based nonprofit.

What do you think? Can we expect an answer in 25 years?
Thanks.

P.S. Please take time to read the article and answer the cool poll on the page.

 

[ISamson]

Do you think extra-terrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe or the Milky Way galaxy?

P.S. I hope such poll has not yet appeared on PF, has it?

 

[Arman777]

Its somehow hard for me to believe that..I don't know why, Theres billions of galaxies and billion billion of stars and also so much more planets...and It seems possible that there might be life somewhere in there.

I believe evolving life on Earth has a possibility of $\frac {1} {10^{22}}$, Its uniqe as our universe.To evolve life, there's has to be a lot of coincidental things. For me its unlikely that we will find a ET life or even there's one.

Like If you think deeply how we got here, Its just by luck and coincidence,
Even there's some ET life, I don't think we will be able to commucinate with them.

 

[ISamson]

Its somehow hard for me to believe that..I don't know why, Theres billions of galaxies and billion billion of stars and also so much more planets...and It seems possible that there might be life somewhere in there.

I believe evolving life on Earth has a possibility of $\frac {1} {10^{22}}$, Its uniqe as our universe.To evolve life, there's has to be a lot of coincidental things. For me its unlikely that we will find a ET life or even there's one.

Like If you think deeply how we got here, Its just by luck and coincidence,
Even there's some ET life, I don't think we will be able to commucinate with them.

As many coincidences as there have been that have favoured our evolution, I still believe that life is a quite normal thing for our universe. Just think about it, there are thousands of stars in the visible sky. Around each one orbit some planets. And that is just the observable night sky. + we have not counted all the asteroids and comets that fly by. I think there is a very hight chance that somewhere some little planet just like ours, or perhaps a huge giant or even a tiny asteroid or comet has been fortunate enough to possesses the right conditions for the evolution of life.
I would like to point out that extra-terrestrial life might not be ANYTHING like ours. They might be able to survive on a frozen comet, a 400= degree Celsius planet like Venus or even deep underground where we might never find it. In my opinion, it might not even need liquid water to live.
I vote 'probably' because of the huge possibilities of it even existing in our backyard on Mars, BUT this is not certain.

 

[symbolipoint]

Yes. Life certainly occurs on other planets very far away, and when we finally communicate with the more intelligent of them, THEY SPEAK ENGLISH!

Actually finding, communicating, and studying them may yet take some time.

 

[ISamson]

Yes. Life certainly occurs on other planets very far away, and when we finally communicate with the more intelligent of them, THEY SPEAK ENGLISH!

Actually finding, communicating, and studying them may yet take some time.

Yes, communicating and finding a common 'language' might be a problem.

 

[Ophiolite]

While this may be the first time the question has been raised in PhysicsForums as a poll, it is a popular question on science forums in general. Perhaps I should apologise for giving my stock answer, but I won't (apologise, I will give the answer).

We have a single example of life. To extrapolate from a single example may be useful as an exercise in logic and lateral thinking, but it is useless for producing a reliable solution. I lean towards the view developed by Ward and Brownlee in their book "Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe". They make the case that while simple life, such as Earthly prokaryotes, may be commonplace, advanced complex life and especially intelligent life is exceptional and rare.

I would be surprised* if, by the end of this century, we had not resolved the issue via one or more of these routes:

• Identification of life signatures of exoplanets
• Discovery of life on another solar system body
• Successful SETI contact
• More assured specification of the vague variables in the Drake equation, specifically a plausible, detailed account of abiogenesis

 

[russ_watters]

What do you think? Can we expect an answer in 25 years?

I answered "probably" to the question in the title, but you didn't specify intelligent life in the title. I would say that in the next 25 years we will discover life, but will likely not ever have two-way communication with another intelligent life form.
[Late edit; fixed quote]

 

[Apple_Mango]

If there were signs of intelligent alien life, I imagine that must had been some kind of Alien mega structures or radio waves in space. We haven't found any. There is no life.

 

[Ophiolite]

If there were signs of intelligent alien life, I imagine that must had been some kind of Alien mega structures or radio waves in space. We haven't found any. There is no life.

There are several alternative explanations for the absence of these, including, but not limited to the following:

• Too remote to be detected by current technology.
• We are looking in the wrong places
• The aliens are intelligent, but not technologically advanced
• The aliens have no need for, or interest in constructing mega-structures
• Alien radio transmissions are intensely focused and do not intersect the orbit of the Earth
• Alien radio transmissions lack sufficient power to be detected
• Aliens use alternate transmission methods
• Aliens believe revealing their presence is dangerous

So, although your conclusion may be correct, the evidence you have based it upon is flawed.

 

[PeroK]

If there were signs of intelligent alien life, I imagine that must had been some kind of Alien mega structures or radio waves in space. We haven't found any. There is no life.

That logic is perhaps far from compelling!

 

[phinds]

If there were signs of intelligent alien life, I imagine that must had been some kind of Alien mega structures or radio waves in space. We haven't found any. There is no life.

The universe is VERY unlikely to limit itself to what you can imagine.

 

[OCR]

Aliens believe revealing their presence is dangerous

Yeah, that's what they told me... anyway. .

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

If there were signs of intelligent alien life, I imagine that must had been some kind of Alien mega structures or radio waves in space. We haven't found any. There is no life.

Have we searched every galaxy in the Universe?

Are those two criteria the only ones that would provide signs of intelligent life?

Does the intelligent life have to be farther along technologically than we are?

If they are truly intelligent and out there why would they contact us?

 

[Arman777]

Discussing Is there aliens or not, is like discussing Is there Unicorns somewhere or not.

I don't believe in unicorns but when I see one or hear, I am sure that I ll believe their existence.

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

Discussing Is there aliens or not, is like discussing Is there Unicorns somewhere or not.

I don't believe in unicorns but when I see one or hear, I am sure that I ll believe their existence.

What if you lived in a world where every large four-footed mammal had a single horn on its forehead?

 

[Arman777]

What if you lived in a world where every large four-footed mammal had a single horn on its forehead?

What it means ?

 

[BillTre]

Arguments against the existence of extraterrestrial life that use the "where are they" approach are similar to the Fermi paradox.

1)
Requiring seeing aliens requires aliens that are intelligent and interesting in communicating in some way. This is a big step up from just the existence of alien lifeforms, which is different from the question of the OP:

Do you think extra-terrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe or the Milky Way galaxy?

2)
Assuming that any life out there is based on carbon based chemistry, it would not have the whole age of the universe to generate life forms which could come and visit us or which we could potentially observe. Before any of that could happen, the various elements heavier that H and He would have to be generated through one or more cycles of stellar lifecycles. Taking our Earth as an example, this might remove times further back that 4 Billion years from consideration, since carbon had not yet been generated. This might limit relevant observations to just a local group of galaxies (or within 4 billion light years of distance (or whichever is the furthest).

 

[DennisN]

P.S. I hope such poll has not yet appeared on PF, has it?

Similar poll, but regarding intelligent life: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/intelligent-life-other-than-on-earth.924344/
(I voted probably on this poll)

 

[Apple_Mango]

tough crowd

 

[ISamson]

Quora article on this topic.

 

[Jacinta]

Certainly.

It is very unlikely we are the only living life forms in the entire galaxy, there must be another type of life form out there in some shape or form.

 

[Apple_Mango]

"Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe". They make the case that while simple life, such as Earthly prokaryotes, may be commonplace, advanced complex life and especially intelligent life is exceptional and rare.

I have that book in my room. I read it a long time ago and don't remember much of the book. However, because you brought it up, I feel like reading it again.

 

[kyphysics]

As many coincidences as there have been that have favoured our evolution, I still believe that life is a quite normal thing for our universe. Just think about it, there are thousands of stars in the visible sky. Around each one orbit some planets. And that is just the observable night sky. + we have not counted all the asteroids and comets that fly by. I think there is a very hight chance that somewhere some little planet just like ours, or perhaps a huge giant or even a tiny asteroid or comet has been fortunate enough to possesses the right conditions for the evolution of life.
I would like to point out that extra-terrestrial life might not be ANYTHING like ours. They might be able to survive on a frozen comet, a 400= degree Celsius planet like Venus or even deep underground where we might never find it. In my opinion, it might not even need liquid water to live.
I vote 'probably' because of the huge possibilities of it even existing in our backyard on Mars, BUT this is not certain.

I would concur with Arman777 in that there are a large number of conditions that have to be met for life (of any kind) to be evolved and sustained such that it's wildly improbable that there is life elsewhere in the universe. And it's not just a large number of conditions, but conditions that must be narrowly defined too.

Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, has done calculations that would make it more likely for a person to win the lottery 1 million consecutive times than for there to be life elsewhere in the universe. He lists 147 conditions that absolutely must be met at minimum (with possibly more) for life to develop on a planet. The odds of all of those conditions occurring in the perfect planet are 10¹⁶⁴. By contrast, he says that the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe is 10⁷⁹. And for a more intuitive grasp of how improbable those odds are, he says the probability of someone being killed in the next few seconds by a sudden reversal of the second law of thermodynamics is roughly 1 chance in 10⁸⁰. But we know that it's such a ridiculously small probability that everyone is justified in not worrying about that chance happening to them at any moment.

Essentially, Ross says, "The probability is indistinguishable from zero."

I think most people are justified in thinking we're pretty much alone. It's not impossible for other life to exist, but the odds are against it.

 

[BillTre]

You need a reference of some kind for this:

Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, has done calculations that would make it more likely for a person to win the lottery 1 million consecutive times than for there to be life elsewhere in the universe. He lists 147 conditions that absolutely must be met at minimum (with possibly more) for life to develop on a planet. The odds of all of those conditions occurring in the perfect planet are 10164. By contrast, he says that the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe is 1079. And for a more intuitive grasp of how improbable those odds are, he says the probability of someone being killed in the next few seconds by a sudden reversal of the second law of thermodynamics is roughly 1 chance in 1080. But we know that it's such a ridiculously small probability that everyone is justified in not worrying about that chance happening to them at any moment.

Essentially, Ross says, "The probability is indistinguishable from zero."

I don't believe it.
Essentially, he is saying I can't be alive. I beg to differ!

 

[Noisy Rhysling]

What it means ?

Would you consider unicorns possible if you lived on a world where all large mammals have a single horn on their head.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would concur with Arman777 in that there are a large number of conditions that have to be met for life (of any kind) to be evolved and sustained such that it's wildly improbable that there is life elsewhere in the universe. And it's not just a large number of conditions, but conditions that must be narrowly defined too.

Astrophysicist, Hugh Ross, has done calculations that would make it more likely for a person to win the lottery 1 million consecutive times than for there to be life elsewhere in the universe. He lists 147 conditions that absolutely must be met at minimum (with possibly more) for life to develop on a planet. The odds of all of those conditions occurring in the perfect planet are 10¹⁶⁴. By contrast, he says that the total number of protons and neutrons in the universe is 10⁷⁹. And for a more intuitive grasp of how improbable those odds are, he says the probability of someone being killed in the next few seconds by a sudden reversal of the second law of thermodynamics is roughly 1 chance in 10⁸⁰. But we know that it's such a ridiculously small probability that everyone is justified in not worrying about that chance happening to them at any moment.

Essentially, Ross says, "The probability is indistinguishable from zero."

I think most people are justified in thinking we're pretty much alone. It's not impossible for other life to exist, but the odds are against it.

Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and Christian apologist. His assessment that the odds of life arising naturally are essentially zero, supports his belief in a Creator. One wonders to what extent his religious beliefs might impact upon his calculations.

He has written or contributed to a score of books and I am not clear in which one he lays out the 147 requirements for life. Without access to those 147 requirements it is impossible to address them, but we might be reasonably suspicious of how he has been able to assign specific and reliable numbers to each of the 147 requirments, when such specificity has eluded most experts across the number of fields they are likely to cover.

 

[Arman777]

Would you consider unicorns possible if you lived on a world where all large mammals have a single horn on their head.

Yes I would

 

[Arman777]

I believe in antrophic principle.So we don't need aliens :)

 

[Evo]

Even if there was "intelligent" life, that doesn't mean we could communicate with it. Maybe it's far more advanced. Can intelligence operate on more than one level? I assume you are thinking of the current human level of intelligence. We could be like chimpanzees, or less, to a more advanced species.

 

[kyphysics]

Hugh Ross is an astrophysicist and Christian apologist. His assessment that the odds of life arising naturally are essentially zero, supports his belief in a Creator. One wonders to what extent his religious beliefs might impact upon his calculations.

He has written or contributed to a score of books and I am not clear in which one he lays out the 147 requirements for life. Without access to those 147 requirements it is impossible to address them, but we might be reasonably suspicious of how he has been able to assign specific and reliable numbers to each of the 147 requirments, when such specificity has eluded most experts across the number of fields they are likely to cover.

I'm not sure why a Christian faith would impact one's research into this area, though, Ophiolite. I don't know of a single Christian academic and apologist (though, I think some do exist ...they're just not respected ones from what I would surmise) who believes the Christian God necessarily only "created" humans on Earth. All of the top Christian academic apologists see no contradiction between Christianity and life having been created/developed elsewhere in the universe. And that's also the position of the world's most renowned academic Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

But supposing it were true that there was a possible bias, it's not to say that one cannot be objective still. We do this all the time in other areas of life. In America, at least, racial bias is a very common unconscious bias. Numerous psychology, social psychology, and FMRI studies show that people have unconscious racial biases. Yet, we're able to keep them in check by first acknowledging that we have or may have these biases. Then we can actively ask ourselves questions like: "Would I think of this or that in the same way if the subject were of my own ethnicity/racial background or that of the dominant group?" Admittedly, it can be tough to always identify potential situations where our biases arise. But I think once you get into the mindset that we do often have them and actively try to combat them and attempt to be objective, then it's possible to control for them - all the more so when your work is in science, where results can often be easily proven/disproven.

By the eway, the 147 conditions figure is found in his book Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men.

He also discusses that figure in this video interview on the same book:



There are some examples of specific conditions too...though he doesn't list all 147...which would take a long time and probably get boring too! It's around the 7 minute 50 second mark that he talks about this. Let me know what you think. Could be fun to discuss.

 

[Ophiolite]

I made my post in order to provide background and to note two areas where skepticism might be applied, not to initiate a discussion that could very rapidly breach forum rules. Thank you for the information on the source of the "147 requirements" and for the video link.

Meanwhile, back on topic, I note that one person has voted "I am not sure ". On reflection that is probably the most objective and scientific conclusion one can reach on current evidence.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure why a Christian faith would impact one's research into this area, though, Ophiolite. I don't know of a single Christian academic and apologist (though, I think some do exist ...they're just not respected ones from what I would surmise) who believes the Christian God necessarily only "created" humans on Earth. All of the top Christian academic apologists see no contradiction between Christianity and life having been created/developed elsewhere in the universe. And that's also the position of the world's most renowned academic Christian apologist, William Lane Craig.

That surprises me; I always thought the uniqueness of Earth was a requirement and aliens a can of worms best not opened. However, I know that there has been re-interpretation to keep the gulf between science and religion from getting too large. So maybe that has changed. I don't want to go into details though. What matters is this:

But supposing it were true that there was a possible bias, it's not to say that one cannot be objective still.

Certainly, but having a strong and directly applicable bias makes it hard to overcome.

I may wade into his 127 points a bit though...

 

[russ_watters]

Meanwhile, back on topic, I note that one person has voted "I am not sure ". On reflection that is probably the most objective and scientific conclusion one can reach on current evidence.

Meh. I hear that sentiment a lot from scientists, but I think it is overdone. Making predictions is what moves science forward and a prediction is by definition speculative so it doesn't require caveat when worded properly. It's already obvious that no one is sure.

I think what is really intended is true uncertainty even of the prediction (choice B, below). Worded better, I'd say:

Hypothesis: Alien life exists.
Question: what is your confidence level that this is correct?
A. 0-33% (probably/definitely not)
B. 33-67% (not sure)
C. 67-99.99...9% (likely/certainly)

 

[Khashishi]

Christians believe that God created man in his image (and women from men). If we find aliens, and they look like humans, it's a compelling argument for God. But if they don't look like humans, Christians will probably have to "reinterpret" the meaning of the passage.