Habitable exoplanets are bad news for humanity

[thesolar65]

Long article...summarize plz

OK, there are two possibilities. Either we are alone or we are not!! and both possibilities are scary!!

You need to lock your windows.

Specially during 10PM to 1.00AM....

 

[Developereo]

For all the known science, it is the only medium for distant communication.

Who's to say it is the ONLY medium possible, just because our science says so?
People using smoke signals would say that that is the only medium for distant communication.

If we could tap into quantum entanglement, we could build communication devices that would provide crystal clear and instantaneous communication from miles below the Earth's crust all the way to distant stars.

Try doing that with electromagnetic waves!

For advanced civilizations, radio might seem just as primitive as smoke signals.

In itself not a new discovery - we have used it since forever only discovered new usage recently. Only that if a new field of physics is discovered.

The first radio transmitter was built in the late 19th century. By communication , I don't mean using mirrors, I mean an actual radio transmitter.

 

[Levina]

The Trueman Show? its been on HBO like hundreds of time!

Ohhhooo I meant I literally believe in tat line.

You need to lock your windows.

I was watching a horror movie dont scare me now

Specially during 10PM to 1.00AM....

naah extend it till 3am.

 

[Kloitra]

Who's to say it is the ONLY medium possible, just because our science says so?
People using smoke signals would say that that is the only medium for distant communication.

If we could tap into quantum entanglement, we could build communication devices that would provide crystal clear and instantaneous communication from miles below the Earth's crust all the way to distant stars.

Try doing that with electromagnetic waves!

For advanced civilizations, radio might seem just as primitive as smoke signals.

As I said, known science!

The first radio transmitter was built in the late 19th century. By communication , I don't mean using mirrors, I mean an actual radio transmitter.

You said EM waves, ignoring the radio part. We have used em waves for communication ever since invention of eyes, probably even earlier.

Now why would an alien species try to communicate using em waves and not any other advanced method? Cause it is the most basic method that even the least developed species, all the known matter, even subatomic particles react to in the most obvious manner.

(Read the above in a thick British accent, for more impact!)

 

[madooxno9]

Come on , you little green thing . Come out now , i will extract all the bloody powers from your little brain

 

[Developereo]

As I said, known science!)

Actually, it's not even about science but technology. Nothing in our known science precludes the existence of other means of communications. As I wrote above, even as far back as 1970s scientists "communicated" using quantum entanglement, but the technology is a long way from maturity. Look up Aspect experiment, among others.

You said EM waves, ignoring the radio part. We have used em waves for communication ever since invention of eyes, probably even earlier.)

At the most basic level, that is true. The first light-sensitive membrane that evolved billions of years ago was a receiver for EM radiation. When I wave my hands, I am using EM waves for communication since I expect that the reflected light will be interpreted by your eyes appropriately.

However, when people talk of radio communication, it refers to a specific technology.

Now why would an alien species try to communicate using em waves and not any other advanced method? Cause it is the most basic method that even the least developed species, all the known matter, even subatomic particles react to in the most obvious manner.

(Read the above in a thick British accent, for more impact!)

We don't use smoke signals any more.

We have been using radio transmitters for barely a hundred years. Assuming it takes us another hundred to commercialize another means (e.g. quantum effects), we would drop radio and switch to those methods. So, in the entire history of human existence, we would only emit radio signals for a mere two hundred years. Our "radio era" would last two hundred years.

Two hundred years is less than a blink of an eye in human history, let alone against the backdrop of millions of years.

 

[Informant]

Ohhhooo I meant I literally believe in tat line.

I was watching a horror movie dont scare me now

naah extend it till 3am.

Horror movie, you are brave. I cant watch horror movies

 

[Kloitra]

Actually, it's not even about science but technology. Nothing in our known science precludes the existence of other means of communications. As I wrote above, even as far back as 1970s scientists "communicated" using quantum entanglement, but the technology is a long way from maturity. Look up Aspect experiment, among others.



At the most basic level, that is true. The first light-sensitive membrane that evolved billions of years ago was a receiver for EM radiation. When I wave my hands, I am using EM waves for communication since I expect that the reflected light will be interpreted by your eyes appropriately.

However, when people talk of radio communication, it refers to a specific technology.

My bad, wrong term.

We don't use smoke signals any more.

We have been using radio transmitters for barely a hundred years. Assuming it takes us another hundred to commercialize another means (e.g. quantum effects), we would drop radio and switch to those methods. So, in the entire history of human existence, we would only emit radio signals for a mere two hundred years. Our "radio era" would last two hundred years.

Two hundred years is less than a blink of an eye in human history, let alone against the backdrop of millions of years.

It doesn't matter. What are the chances that any species out there, as advanced or as primitive, would interact with radio waves vs any hi-tech method? EM reacts to all, you need more technology for better means. Why would try to communicate through any advanced technique? Would not you choose the simplest, most basic one? The time line you talk about is for our species, one and only. It might not apply on any other. Of all the methods, which has the highest chances?

 

[Developereo]

What are the chances that any species out there, as advanced or as primitive, would interact with radio waves vs any hi-tech method? EM reacts to all, you need more technology for better means. Why would try to communicate through any advanced technique? Would not you choose the simplest, most basic one? The time line you talk about is for our species, one and only. It might not apply on any other. Of all the methods, which has the highest chances?

Because outer space is swamped with EM. Every star, every nebula, every wisp of matter out there is busy emitting EM radiation. To top it all off, there is the cosmic background radiation.

EM is about the worst possible technology to communicate through space. It's like trying to talk to someone across the hall in a really, really, REALLY, loud nightclub. And, to top it off, it crawls miserably at the speed of light.

We use EM because that's all we have but any civilization that advanced beyond that stage would be unlikely to revert back to it. In the history of communication, it would have a shorter lifespan than smoke signals.

Only the most eccentric anthropologist (or the alien equivalent thereof) would be interested in EM communication.

 

[Roybot]

For advanced civilizations, radio might seem just as primitive as smoke signals.

If the aliens were so smart, and wanted to communicate with us, they could easily dumb it down for us and try communicating our way?

 

[Developereo]

If the aliens were so smart, and wanted to communicate with us, they could easily dumb it down for us and try communicating our way?

If they were specifically talking to us, yes.

But the whole idea behind SETI and similar programs is that aliens are broadcasting their presence (deliberately or incidentally) and we would catch their transmissions.

 

[Kloitra]

Because outer space is swamped with EM. Every star, every nebula, every wisp of matter out there is busy emitting EM radiation. To top it all off, there is the cosmic background radiation.

EM is about the worst possible technology to communicate through space. It's like trying to talk to someone across the hall in a really, really, REALLY, loud nightclub. And, to top it off, it crawls miserably at the speed of light.

We use EM because that's all we have but any civilization that advanced beyond that stage would be unlikely to revert back to it. In the history of communication, it would have a shorter lifespan than smoke signals.

Only the most eccentric anthropologist (or the alien equivalent thereof) would be interested in EM communication.

Why would an advanced civilization would use a method that it knows would not be captured by the lesser ones? When you are trying to communicate, you are not trying with just your peers, but anyone. Besides, even with all that noise, it works really well.

 

[Developereo]

Why would an advanced civilization would use a method that it knows would not be captured by the lesser ones? When you are trying to communicate, you are not trying with just your peers, but anyone. Besides, even with all that noise, it works really well.

Setting aside the fact that radio takes forever and a day to get anywhere, we don't know where it stacks up in the list of communication technologies. I mentioned quantum entanglement, but there might be a thousand other ways to communicate.

Any alien civilization would prioritize the list of technologies used to broadcast itself and we simply don't know where radio sits in that list.

P.S. I remember watching a program called 'After humans' or something like that. It analyzed how long our impact would be visible if we disappeared tomorrow. One of the things they mentioned is that even our radio transmissions would get so weak beyond a certain radius that they would be indistinguishable from galactic noise.

 

[The SC]

Proponents of this “Rare Earth” hypothesis also argue that the evolution of complex life requires an exceedingly large number of perfect conditions. In addition to Earth being in the habitable zone of the Sun, our star must be far enough away from the galactic center to avoid destructive radiation, our gas giants must be massive enough to sweep asteroids from Earth’s trajectory, and our unusually large Moon stabilizes the axial tilt that gives us different seasons.

It is all summed up in the above lines.

About intelligence as we know it, it is a mean of survival, it is a special case for humans, since they are the most intelligent of the intelligent life on earth, which is debatable, because we do not live in water or in the air, so intelligence is in reality a context affair. The same apply in the universe; there might be other forms of intelligence in their own perfect conditions, and geared toward survival by intelligence. In this way the stars and galaxies too are surviving with intelligence, the question is on what level, and the answer is, certainly a much higher level than ours which is the highest on earth.
The whole universe is linked somehow, take the moon and the sun for example and their influences on temperature and seasons on earth, and we know that intelligent life exists on earth because of that. So what level of intelligence are we talking about, since humans are limited in all their senses.
It sounds like intelligence in humans is a force acting on _ reprimanding_ their instincts, to behave wisely (read Intelligently) to the only end of survival, otherwise they won't survive, It acts like a moderating (in the positive sens of survival) factor forced upon humans, because they are unwise and not as sharp as other animals in their own environ in nature , so, when compared to other intelligent life on earth they are not the best survivors eventhough they might enjoy a higher level of reasoning than other animals, this higher reasoning capacity was a requirement, not a choise in order to survive. First they needed to form packs, which is instinct or strategy (sounds better) more than intelligence, since we can find the same behavior in most animals and plants surviving in packs. We notice the same phenomenon in outer space, or better yet just looking into our galaxy with every planet playing a distinct and required role for the survival of the galaxy.
This is another way of looking at intelligence and survival. So for me , evolution , survival of the fittest and the rest are micro components, depending on much more important and essential elements, in the micro as well as the macro world .
So intelligent life - as we understand it from this perspective presented here - on other planets in other circumstances can exist in their own forms if there are specific and required conditions applied to a whole galaxy or the habitable part of it like the milky way in Earth's case. But I doubt it very much that they will have a human or humanoid, animalistic or botanical like features. it is the only way for us to imagine them (we know no other forms in our brains, and we can not imagine planets, stars and galaxies without hands or legs or heads being intelligent life), but it is not the only way for the higher intelligence running the universe.

 

[Developereo]

So intelligent life - as we understand it from this perspective presented here - on other planets in other circumstances can exist in their own forms if there are specific and required conditions applied to a whole galaxy or the habitable part of it like the milky way in Earth's case.

Generally, in these contexts, the term "intelligent life" is used to mean a biological life form which has the foresight and means to manipulate nature to suit its needs.

At a basic level, a bird building a nest is also molding its environment, but it remains susceptible to environmental and evolutionary pressures. Humans, by contrast, create their own artificial environment and detach themselves from evolutionary forces to an increasing extent.