New Model Calculates Chances of Intelligent Beings In Our Universe and Beyond (ras.ac.uk)
- Reference: 0175483247
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/24/11/16/1845222/new-model-calculates-chances-of-intelligent-beings-in-our-universe-and-beyond
- Source link: https://www.ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/research-highlights/formula-life-new-model-calculates-chances-intelligent-beings-our
Since stars are a precondition for the emergence of life, the new research predicts that a typical observer [i.e., intelligent life] should experience a substantially larger density of dark energy than is seen in our own Universe...
> The approach presented in [2]the paper involves calculating the fraction of ordinary matter converted into stars over the entire history of the Universe, for different dark energy densities. The model predicts this fraction would be approximately 27% in a universe that is most efficient at forming stars, compared to 23% in our own Universe. Dark energy makes the Universe expand faster, balancing gravity's pull and creating a universe where both expansion and structure formation are possible. However, for life to develop, there would need to be regions where matter can clump together to form stars and planets, and it would need to remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.
>
> Crucially, the research suggests that the astrophysics of star formation and the evolution of the large-scale structure of the Universe combine in a subtle way to determine the optimal value of the dark energy density needed for the generation of intelligent life. Professor Lucas Lombriser, Université de Genève and co-author of the study, added: "It will be exciting to employ the model to explore the emergence of life across different universes and see whether some fundamental questions we ask ourselves about our own Universe must be reinterpreted."
The study was funded by the EU's European Research Council, and [3]published in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society .
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader [4]schwit1 for sharing the news.
[1] https://www.ras.ac.uk/news-and-press/research-highlights/formula-life-new-model-calculates-chances-intelligent-beings-our
[2] https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/535/2/1449/7896079?login=false
[3] https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/mnras/stae2236
[4] https://www.slashdot.org/~schwit1
The probability is high (Score:4, Insightful)
Given how vast the universe is, I think the better question to ask is, "What is the likelihood that there isn't intelligent life elsewhere?" I would assume very low. The problems that life has had to encounter here are not so different from the problems that life has had to encounter elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
> Given how vast the universe is, I think the better question to ask is, "What is the likelihood that there isn't intelligent life elsewhere?"
Indeed, but yet there are no observable signs of intelligent life anywhere. [1]Kardashev [wikipedia.org] Type 1 would be observable in nearby starts, Type 2 would be detectable to us anywhere in our galaxy and Type 3 would be detectable in a lot of visible galaxies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale
Re: (Score:2)
But even in our detection methods, we're not doing very well. SETI, at least the last time I looked (2 decades ago), was using Gaussian smoothing to filter out noise. Those same filters will flatten out an advanced civilization that has inhabited multiple stars in close proximity. We're also limited as to what we have the technology to detect. The ideas of radio transmission are quite young and there is likely far more that we don't know and can't leverage than the opposite. The one thing we do know for cer
Re: The probability is high (Score:3)
We're not Type 1, and all of them, especially 2 and 3 are high fantasy. Should be detectable in nearby stars... ok, like looking for Bigfoot behind the palm tree in your back yard.
Drawing a straight line of energy consumption out to arbitrary levels is as dumb as drawing population graphs out to infinity. A flourishing civilization may not EVER get to Type 1.
Re: (Score:3)
There's a problem with your question: you don't define "intelligent".
There are a number of nonhuman species (elephants, octopi, etc) on Earth that display some degree of intelligence, but wouldn't meet the "conventional" definition (technologically advanced civilization-builders).
"The problems that life has had to encounter here are not so different from the problems that life has had to encounter elsewhere."
That's not necessarily true. Earth has a lot of things going for it. Our star has stable energy outp
Re: The probability is high (Score:1)
Given how huge the timespans are, the odds of there being intelligent life we can communicate with are rather low. Many civilisations may already be extinct, and many others may be on the verge of the stone age. Since we cannot prove or disprove these hypotheses, I would be more impressed if we developed a model for intelligent life on this planet. So far, not much going on.
Not the Question, Summary is Awful (Score:4, Informative)
The summary is one of the worst I have ever read on Slashdot and utterly misses the entire point of the paper. The paper is NOT in anyway asking about the probability of life elsewhere in the universe. Instead, it is looking at the range of values of the universe's parameters that could lead to conditions where intelligent life can evolve.
Specifically there has been something called the anthropic principle where the apparent fine tuning of our universe's initial parameters to create a universe where life is possible is explained as us being one of an infinite multitude of universes but that only universes where intelligent life is possible have observers to see it. Think of it like a person in a dark room throwing a pair of dice where the light only gets turned on if one of the dice shows a '6'. In such a case you will never see a total less than '7' but that bias is because you only see throws where there is at least one 6, not that the dice are somehow weighted.
What this paper suggests is that we are not actually in a particularly fine-tuned universe based on star formation and there is a wide range of universes in which there should be sufficient star formation that life is likely assuming that the probability of observers is proportional to the amount of stars. So rather than being some deluded sci-fi attempt at calculating the probability of life which it does not do at all, it simply assumes that the probability of life is proportional to the amount of stars formed and tries to estimate the chance of us evolving in a universe with the observed cosmological parameters. The result is that it suggests that our universe does not seem to be particularly fine-tuned thus questioning the anthropic principle.
The problem here is that some idiot publicist/journalist has got hold of the paper and tried to hype it in a way that makes it sound far "sexier" but also far less scientific, than it actually is. This is actually decent science just hyped to make it sound instead like bad science fiction. Misrepresenting things like this to garner interest has to stop. We do science because it is important, not to gain likes on social media, and if this misrepresentation continues, then like the boy who cries wolf, when we do find something important and actually need people to pay attention and believe it, nobody will.
What in the world has happened to science? (Score:2, Insightful)
Good Lord, a "scientific" paper using a "modeled" distribution of "dark" energy to predict the "emergence" of intelligent life via natural selection of randomly mutated changes in genetic structures?
That's the plot of a Sci-Fi novel.
Re: (Score:2)
> Good Lord, a "scientific" paper using a "modeled" distribution of "dark" energy to predict the "emergence" of intelligent life via natural selection of randomly mutated changes in genetic structures?
> That's the plot of a Sci-Fi novel.
Already been done to some extent. Life on [1]a neutron star [wikipedia.org].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon's_Egg
Not what the paper does (Score:2)
The article on the paper was written by an idiot who did not understand it and was trying to garner attention by misrepresenting what the paper does. The paper does not in any way try to calculate the probability of life to evolve. It simply assumes that this probability is proportional to the number of stars formed in a universe and then asks how likely is it for us to have evolved in a universe with our cosmological parameters.
So to answer your question, what has happened to science is that the people
Assumptions (Score:2)
> Since stars are a precondition for the emergence of life,
That's a rather large assumption, I would say. Energy of some kind is surely a precondition for life, but does it have to come from stars?
> and it would need to remain stable for billions of years to allow life to evolve.
Given that we have a sample size of 1, do you really feel confident assuming you know how long it takes for life to evolve?
> Dark energy makes the Universe expand faster, balancing gravity's pull and creating a universe where both expansion and structure formation are possible.
These seem like inordinately confident assertions considering how little we actually know about dark energy.
Re: (Score:2)
> Given that we have a sample size of 1, do you really feel confident assuming you know how long it takes for life to evolve?
Billions of years is likely an overestimate of what’s possible, but any life as it’s remotely defined needs to store information and process it in a way to evolve. So long periods of stability are likely a minimum requirement. It could be deep within a planet around an unstable star, it could possibly evolve on a gas planet without a usable surface, but it does need stability or its self replicating pattern is simply wiped away.
Nonesense (Score:4, Insightful)
What a load of nonsense. You can't use probability to predict something happening that has only ever happened ONCE (abiogenesis) that we know of. That isn't how statistics work. And you can't just throw "universe is really big" at the problem either. There have been TRILLIONS of organic chemicals bouncing around Earth for 4 billion years and those never because alive before or after that one life-starting event, so sheer numbers obviously don't matter. It is just insanity to use probability, we don't have enough information. You may as well try to create a theory for how many universes have ever been created.
Re: (Score:3)
TRILLIONS is a relatively small number, cosmologically speaking.
TL; DR (Score:1)
So what's the result? Are there any?
Model makes many assumptions to come up +-100000% (Score:3)
Model makes many assumptions to come up an answer that is +-100000% .
I am not sure how a model that estimates various things that we actually have zero idea about (or even what is or if it actually exists--dark energy/matter), could come up with a useful answer.
Maybe as a though experiment.
But probably Garbage in/Garbage out.
Plenty of versions of the Drake Equation out there (Score:2)
Just tweak the assumptions here and there, throw in or take out terms here and there, you'll get any result you want. It's just conjecture. A fun little game for the sci-fi enthusiast. Calling it a model would be absurd at this point. We need a baseline of well-characterized exoplanets, and we're not even close to that.
Plate tectonics (Score:2)
Star formation? this is useless, we can more or less see how many stars are out there. Now there is a theory that plate tectonics is important in the evolution of life. If so how common is plate tectonics? it could be exceedingly rare and a key variable in the Drake equation. [1]https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2024/07/03/this-new-theory-on-why-we-are-alone-in-the-cosmos-may-surprise-you/
More evidence (Score:2)
Are we on the verge of publicly having contact with other civilizations? More and more articles and publication are coming out on life beyond earth, like getting people ready about the idea of us not being alone. I have no doubts about other life in the universe, we sure aren't alone. But I do have doubts about the misuse of alien technology, until we find our own way to travel faster in our own galaxy, hell even our own solar system.
Misleading headline (Score:2)
Based on the summary, the goal isn't to say whether there is life out there, but only to better understand how different levels of dark energy effect the environment.
And on earth? (Score:2)
Since we cannot prove or disprove these hypotheses, I would be more impressed if we developed a model for intelligent life on this planet. So far, given how we (do not) deal with the climate change that we help accelerating, or considering recent election results, not much going on.
Given the results of the last election (Score:2)
I would say almost zero.
If we assume... (Score:2, Funny)
If we assume that conditions on Earth are optimal for the evolution of intelligent life then very little chance because I've checked Earth extensively and couldn't find any.
A Thousand Brains? (Or none at all?) (Score:2)
I'd like to add an early reference in the discussion to A Thousand Brains by Jeff Hawkins. In the third part of the book (though the first part is the best) he addresses the topic from the perspective of creating a long-lasting "We were here" beacon. Essentially he suggests that huge artificial artifacts could be constructed in orbit around a star that would clearly indicate that intelligence life was nearby. (Not sure if he specified using a nearby star, but that seems obvious?) I think he's quite reason
Neither did the article authors (Score:2)
Given that the title of the article is "New model calculates chances of intelligent beings in our Universe" i.e. not elsewhere in our universe, apparently the Royal Astronomical Society agrees with your assessment. Having read the hype they produced, which makes an interesting piece of science sound like bad science fiction, I can see why.