A new model shows how the spread of ET civilisations can undergo phase changes, providing a deeper insights into the Fermi Paradox
In 1950, the Italian physicist Enrico Fermi raised the question that now bears his name. If there are intelligent civilisations elsewhere in the Universe with technologies that far surpass our own, why do we see no sign of them?
Since then, the so-called Fermi Paradox has puzzled astronomers and science fiction writers alike. And although there are no shortage of ways to approach the problem (this blog has covered them here and here for example), nobody has come up with a convincing explanation. .
Now there is another take on the problem thanks to a new approach by Igor Bezsudnov and Andrey Snarskii at the National Technical University of Ukraine.
Their approach is to imagine that civilisations form at a certain rate, grow to fill a certain volume of space and then collapse and die. They even go as far as to suggest that civilisations have a characteristic life time, which limits how big they can become.
In certain circumstances, however, when civilisations are close enough together in time and space, they can come into contact and when this happens the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures allows them both to flourish in a way that increases their combined lifespan.
...
The question of course is what kind of universe do we live in: are the parameters here ripe for the evolution of a single cosmic civilisation or are we condemned to be forever alone?
Bezsudnov and Snarskii say there's only one way to find out: wait and see.
Where is everybody? -- Wait a moment ... New approach to the Fermi paradox
Interesting questions arise when physicists start chatting. Back in 1950, at Los Alamos National Laboratory, physicists Enrico Fermi, Emil Konopinski, Edward Teller, and Herbert York were walking to lunch when the conversation turned to a recent spate of reports of UFO sightings.
They quickly honed in on the challenge of faster-than-light travel, with Teller opining that there was a one in a million chance that science might achieve this on the scale of small material objects within the next ten years (i.e., by 1960). Fermi begged to differ; he placed the odds at closer to one in ten, making him the optimist of the merry band physicists.
The lunchtime conversation moved on, but Fermi continued to puzzle over the conundrum in his head, finally exclaiming, "Where is everybody?" If his rough calculations were correct, then the Earth should have received alien visitors many times over.
Thus was born the Fermi Paradox, defined as "the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence for, or contact with, such civilizations."
It's been an ongoing puzzle for scientists, and a source of inspiration for science fiction authors, ever since.
There's still no truly convincing explanation, but that doesn't keep physicists from trying to resolve the paradox. The latest effort is a new paper that appeared on the arXiv last week by Igor Bezsudonov and Andrey Snarskii at the National Technical University of Ukraine.
...
This might explain Fermi's Paradox: we don't have alien visitors (or communications) because our universe hasn't undergone that critical phase change -- i.e., we don't live in that finely tuned universe where the parameters are just right to give rise to mixing civilizations. Or we haven't been around long enough yet for the mixing to occur.
The paper ends with the only conclusion it can draw: we'll just have to wait and see.
Bezsudnov and Snarskii even derive an Inequality that a universe must satisfy to become civilized. This, they say, is analogous to the famous Drake Equation which attempts to quantify the number of other contactable civilizations in the universe right now.
Click to play embedded YouTube video.
Ten years after Fermi proposed his paradox, physicist Frank Drake attempted to come with an equation to evaluate the probabilities of alien life arising elsewhere in our universe. It incorporated such terms as the rate at which stars form in a galaxy; how many stars have planets, and of those planets, how many would be habitable; of those that are habitable, how many would develop the kind of life that would evolve into an intelligent civilization capable of interstellar communication; and finally, how long such civilizations would last.
Those values are pretty much unknown, so while we have the equation, we don't have the means of solving it. Yet. We're not even sure exactly how life came about here on Earth, as royal astronomer Martin Rees recently pointed out while arguing against investing in manned spaceflight missions, as opposed to using robotic probes.
...
Drake himself never claimed his equation was less of a solution to Fermi's paradox, and more a means of "organizing our ignorance" on the subject. And he recently revisited the topic in anticipation of SETI-Con -- a weekend event being held later this month to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Drake Equation:
On Wednesday June 9 (at 10 pm), The Science Channel began "Through the Wormhole," a documentary series hosted by Morgan Freeman. Each episode will explore some of the deepest questions that have puzzled mankind for centuries. Is there a Creator? Do aliens exist? What are we made of?
In this special Wide Angle, Discovery News tackles the big question: "Are we alone?" We will explore speculation about intelligent extraterrestrial life, what kinds of environments could support the most basic life and whether our interpretation of "life" is the only possibility in a universe with apparently infinite possibilities.
I know of at least two different types of sky craft that are unlike any aircraft on this planet that i am aware of that i have seen because i was fortunate enough to have been looking right at the right spot when a 3-5 second window opened so i could see them. Just a few seconds more or less and i wouldn't have had any experience with UFO's on this planet in about 60 years and would be just as much in the dark about them as a lot of people. So i know that we are not alone.
Enrico Fermi’s paradox has occupied us more than occasionally in these pages, and for good reason. ‘Where are they,’ asked Fermi, acknowledging an obvious fact: Even if it takes one or two million years for a civilization to develop and use interstellar travel, that is but a blip in terms of the 13.7 billion year age of the universe. Von Neumann probes designed to study other stellar systems and reproduce, moving outward in an ever expanding wave of exploration, could easily have spread across the galaxy long before our ancestors thought of building the pyramids.
Where are they indeed. Kelvin Long, one of Project Icarus’ most energetic proponents, recently sent me Poul Anderson’s thoughts on the subject. I probably don’t need to tell this audience that Anderson was a science fiction author extraordinaire. His books and short stories occupied vast stretches of my youth, and I still maintain that if you want to get not so much the tech and science but the sheer wonder of the interstellar idea, you can tap it in its pure form in his writing. Poul was also the author of Tau Zero, the novel which gave our Tau Zero Foundation its name, and we’re delighted to have Karen Anderson, Poul’s wife, as a valuable part of the organization.
In a letter to the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society in 1986, Anderson sketched the reasons why Fermi was asking his question, citing the von Neumann probes mentioned above, and noting that while interstellar travel was likely hard enough that civilizations practicing it might be rare, all it takes is one to eventually fill the galaxy with its artifacts. He found the notion that Fermi could be answered by saying we are the only high-technology civilization unlikely, but his reason for writing was to offer an entirely different suggestion based on practicality.
In certain circumstances, however, when civilisations are close enough together in time and space, they can come into contact and when this happens the cross-fertilisation of ideas and cultures allows them both to flourish in a way that increases their combined lifespan.
did you guys played with game of life? sometimes when moving things collide there, they turn bigger; some other times, however, they don't - instead, they both disappear.
Any civilization that reaches the stage of interstellar travel would no doubt have long ago rejected the primitive instincts of war, colonization, and unlimited progeneration. They would only explore with automated spacecraft which do minimal ecological harm (for scientific if not moral reasons) and, consequently, under no circumstances would they make themselves known to developing intelligent species such as ourselves. If they saw us self destructing they would probably stand by and watch with great curiosity.
neufer, how can you possibly say that? It's a lovely thought, but I cannot help but think there are other possibilities. Should humans ever get to the point of interstellar travel, I doubt our species will have evolved to have completely done away with the propensity for war, for example. (I think that exceedingly unfortunate, of course.) It takes just one disaster for us to see that people rise to the best and sink to the lowest behavior of our species, regardless of how technologically advanced we have become.
owlice wrote:
neufer, how can you possibly say that? It's a lovely thought, but I cannot help but think there are other possibilities. Should humans ever get to the point of interstellar travel, I doubt our species will have evolved to have completely done away with the propensity for war, for example. (I think that exceedingly unfortunate, of course.) It takes just one disaster for us to see that people rise to the best and sink to the lowest behavior of our species, regardless of how technologically advanced we have become.
At the level of interstellar travel we are NOT AT ALL technologically advanced.
------------------------------------------
____ The Simpsons "Treehouse of Horror"
.........................................
Kang: And over here is our crowning achievement in amusement technology: an electronic version of what you call table tennis.
(Kang shows off a video screen that features the vintage video game Pong.)
Kang: Your primitive paddles have been replaced by an electronic--
Bart: Hey, that's just Pong. Get with the times, man.
Homer: Marge and I played that old game before we were married.
Kang: Well, we did build this spaceship, you know.
Kodos: Anyone from a species that has mastered intergalactic travel, raise your hand.
(Kang and Kodos each raise a tentacle. Bart raises his hand, but Homer slaps it down.)
Kodos: All right, then.
Marge: Sorry. Your game is very nice.
------------------------------------------
owlice wrote:neufer, how can you possibly say that? It's a lovely thought, but I cannot help but think there are other possibilities. Should humans ever get to the point of interstellar travel, I doubt our species will have evolved to have completely done away with the propensity for war, for example. (I think that exceedingly unfortunate, of course.) It takes just one disaster for us to see that people rise to the best and sink to the lowest behavior of our species, regardless of how technologically advanced we have become.
I guess it turns on just how technologically advanced we need to be to engage in interstellar travel. And besides the technology, it seems likely we'd need to be stable, wealthy, and have a viewpoint that allowed for returns not seen for generations.
I don't know that these things are really possible without a major change in our philosophy- a change that will probably require evolutionary changes (or changes we make ourselves) in the brain itself.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
neufer wrote:At the level of interstellar travel we are NOT AT ALL technologically advanced.
I agree, and yet, we are much farther along, much more technically advanced, than our A. afarensis ancestors; this divide, though great indeed, has not done away with war. How great will the divide be between where we are now and where we would need to be for interstellar travel, and how might that divide (or advance, if you prefer) compare with the one that exists between now and our ancient ancestors?
Chris Peterson wrote:I guess it turns on just how technologically advanced we need to be to engage in interstellar travel. And besides the technology, it seems likely we'd need to be stable, wealthy, and have a viewpoint that allowed for returns not seen for generations.
I don't know that these things are really possible without a major change in our philosophy- a change that will probably require evolutionary changes (or changes we make ourselves) in the brain itself.
Why should an improvement in technology, even as great an improvement needed for interstellar travel, require that we be no longer warring people?
I don't ask this to be challenging. I ask because I'm curious. I would much rather think as you two gentlemen do, that humans will eventually be peaceful, but I have not seen anything that leads me to believe we must get there for interstellar travel to be possible.
owlice wrote:Why should an improvement in technology, even as great an improvement needed for interstellar travel, require that we be no longer warring people?
Because the worldview that has us fighting each other seems to me completely incompatible with one that allows us to devote huge resources to a project which would span generations, and likely have no payback except knowledge. Another way of looking at it is that our worldview would have to change so radically from what it is now that I think our current brains would need to change at a structural level. The time required for that is such that we will either have ceased fighting, or we will have destroyed ourselves first.
I don't ask this to be challenging. I ask because I'm curious. I would much rather think as you two gentlemen do, that humans will eventually be peaceful, but I have not seen anything that leads me to believe we must get there for interstellar travel to be possible.
I don't believe we will eventually be peaceful. I think we are probably reaching the end of our run as a technological civilization, and that we will never even attempt interstellar travel.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
owlice wrote:Why should an improvement in technology, even as great an improvement needed for interstellar travel, require that we be no longer warring people?
Because the worldview that has us fighting each other seems to me completely incompatible with one that allows us to devote huge resources to a project which would span generations, and likely have no payback except knowledge. Another way of looking at it is that our worldview would have to change so radically from what it is now that I think our current brains would need to change at a structural level. The time required for that is such that we will either have ceased fighting, or we will have destroyed ourselves first.
I agree to agree.
Chris Peterson wrote:
owlice wrote:I don't ask this to be challenging. I ask because I'm curious. I would much rather think as you two gentlemen do, that humans will eventually be peaceful, but I have not seen anything that leads me to believe we must get there for interstellar travel to be possible.
I don't believe we will eventually be peaceful. I think we are probably reaching the end of our run as a technological civilization, and that we will never even attempt interstellar travel.
I think we have a fair chance of evolving into a peaceful harmonious world society.
(The very fact that the only superpower left in the world is a benevolent
democracy is certainly a major achievement in and of itself.)
If so then we have a fair chance of developing interstellar travel.
But the second situation will require the first first.
Thank you, Chris; your answer is much appreciated!
Chris Peterson wrote:I don't believe we will eventually be peaceful. I think we are probably reaching the end of our run as a technological civilization, and that we will never even attempt interstellar travel.
Whoa! Here I thought I was the pessimist, you the optimist (along with neufer)! I see that is not the case.
Chris Peterson wrote:Because the worldview that has us fighting each other seems to me completely incompatible with one that allows us to devote huge resources to a project which would span generations, and likely have no payback except knowledge.
Hmmm... I will have to think about this. I think of interstellar travel... well, not very often, actually, but when I do, I think of it more along the lines of the Dove or the Mayflower heading off to settle somewhere (even if the settlement in this case is on the vessel). Perhaps at some point, there would be travel between, even if generations apart, and yes, that would take cooperation, but to launch something for settlement elsewhere, it takes much less.
However, war time does seem to be a time of technological advance, not that I condone war. Unfortunately such advances always seem to have applications in the machinery of war.
neufer wrote:I think we have a fair chance of evolving into a peaceful harmonious world society.
(The very fact that the only superpower left in the world is a benevolent
democracy is certainly a major achievement in and of itself.)
I think we have a chance, just not a very good one. As far as there being just one superpower (of arguable benevolence), the problem is that it no longer requires a superpower to destroy civilization. We were safer when that was the case. A small, well funded group of dissidents is now able to inflict huge damages on society, and within a few decades I expect that an individual working alone in his basement lab will have that power. These seem like difficult times for a civilization to make it through.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
owlice wrote:Hmmm... I will have to think about this. I think of interstellar travel... well, not very often, actually, but when I do, I think of it more along the lines of the Dove or the Mayflower heading off to settle somewhere (even if the settlement in this case is on the vessel). Perhaps at some point, there would be travel between, even if generations apart, and yes, that would take cooperation, but to launch something for settlement elsewhere, it takes much less.
Well, yes. It's certainly possible that some small scale venture like the Mayflower (or even Khan setting off with his buddies) could happen. But that doesn't seem like the sort of thing likely to spread humans throughout the galaxy, and without a dedicated intent to maintain communications and return information, I don't know that it would have much impact on the development of human civilization.
If we assume that our society survives and develops the political will to engage in interstellar exploration, surely we'd be looking at centuries of dedicated, unmanned exploration with probes before we would ever consider actual manned interstellar travel.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
neufer wrote:I think we have a fair chance of evolving into a peaceful harmonious world society.
(The very fact that the only superpower left in the world is a benevolent
democracy is certainly a major achievement in and of itself.)
I think we have a chance, just not a very good one. As far as there being just one superpower (of arguable benevolence), the problem is that it no longer requires a superpower to destroy civilization. We were safer when that was the case. A small, well funded group of dissidents is now able to inflict huge damages on society, and within a few decades I expect that an individual working alone in his basement lab will have that power. These seem like difficult times for a civilization to make it through.
Huge damages on society? Could you be more quantitative, Chris?
neufer wrote:Huge damages on society? Could you be more quantitative, Chris?
Wars are no big deal. I could even make a case that they are healthy for our civilization. Humans are well adapted to them, and they rarely result in civilizations collapsing. They usually spur innovation and boost economies. They kill people, but people are cheap and easily replaced (sorry, that's hard but true). They cause physical damage, but the repairs are usually good for the economy. Wars often boost net political stability.
Very different from war is something directed at random against civilians. A dirty bomb in NYC. A nasty virus in western Europe. These sorts of actions produce government responses that are out of balance with the act (such as suspending individual freedoms), cause economic collapse (again, out of balance with the act), and in general, I think, have the ability to drastically change our societies in ways that go far beyond what wars typically do. Nothing quite like this has happened so far (although 9/11 inflicted extreme damage on our society, and has modified our political landscape in ways that we may not fully recover from). But the ability to commit these kinds of acts is getting easier all the time, and the will seems to be increasing. I'm not optimistic for the future.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory https://www.cloudbait.com
