| ▲ | shireboy 4 days ago |
| Right- “where are all the aliens?” is answered by either “they don’t exist” or “they do but physics of the universe prevent them from moving between solar systems.” |
|
| ▲ | Aerroon 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Or: we're the first (or among the first). The history that led to space travel (modern human technology) has passed through an insane amount of unlikely scenarios. A few of these: * Astronomical: the sun is unusually calm for a star. Jupiter blocks comets. Saturn blocked Jupiter from destroying the Earth. * Earth is 4.5 billion years old. In the next 0.5-1 billion years Earth will become unhabitable because the sun's luminosity is increasing. We're in the twilight years of the (life-supporting) planet. * Above point + think about all the species that came before us. Life appeared 3.5-3.8 billion years ago. It took that long to get to humans. * Dinosaurs got wiped out. Would humans have even evolved if a cosmic event hadn't cleared the board? * We think that human ancestors dropped down to about 1000-100,000 individuals about 900k years ago. There's also the question of how many sun-like stars in terms of metallicity there are that preceded the sun. Our sun inherited a lot of heavier elements from a previous generation of star(s). Add all of these together and we might be early to the party. |
| |
| ▲ | twoodfin 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I can’t vouch for its scientific plausibility, but one of my favorite bullets to add to this list comes from Frank Robinson’s novel-length scifi exploration of the plausibility of extraterrestrial life: “The next step is crucial. The simple organic molecules have to be shielded from the ultraviolet radiation of the primary. That requires a large body of water—an ocean—to protect them. No protection and the molecules break up as soon as they're formed. And oceans of water are … extremely rare.” … “But something else is rarer still. The next step in the creation of life is when the amino acids form into long chains. Left in the ocean, they drift apart as easily as they join together. There has to be a means of concentrating them. Once a certain level of concentration is reached, they'll form long chains, more complex molecules, automatically. Heating isolated bodies of water would help, say tidal pools warmed by hot lava and occasionally replenished by the sea.” … “Do you understand, Sparrow? Tidal pools implies tides and that means a moon large enough to raise them—though not too frequently, because you might dilute the pool too much. A combination of the primary and the moon would raise larger tides less often, and that would be a happy medium. What's required, then, is a planet that has land surfaces, oceans, and a large enough satellite to raise suitable tides. The action would concentrate the simple amino acids and they could combine into the longer chains.” The novel is The Dark Beyond the Stars, and I recommend it highly. | | |
| ▲ | defrost 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I first read that same argument when I was twelve or so way back in the day in The Tragedy of the Moon (1973), a collection of nonfiction science essays by Isaac Asimov. |
| |
| ▲ | brabel 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I believe this argument is fallacious. There could be infinite other ways a species could have evolved to acquire space technology. A smart dinosaur that evolved to use arms and tail could perhaps have built an industrial civilization. They would’ve been now 100 million years old! Imagine the progress. Them being wiped out probably just delayed civilization by millions of years. | | |
| ▲ | rini17 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, dinosaurs learned to fly instead. And perhaps they ended in a local maximum that made them survive and thrive but did not allow development of larger brains. Not that humans with their troublesome egos are necessarily anywhere near global maximum. | |
| ▲ | Aerroon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, but they didn't. I do concede that it's possible that they could've. But even that doesn't guarantee anything. Modern humans are ~100k years old. It took us nearly all of that time before we discovered agriculture. And it still took thousands of years after that to end up with industrialization. Before then our societies barely improved. It's entirely possible that if society had gone differently that we could've delayed or avoided industrialization altogether. The same could've happened with dinosaur-people. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | cryptonector 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Or by "none exist right now nearby". If there are technological aliens 3 bly away and 3 bya, we won't likely discover their signals. If there are technological aliens 10 ly and 10 ya then we're extremely likely to pick up their signals (if they emit any), but they're not likely to come here -- not anymore than we are to go there. The Fermi paradox is most easily understood as "the probability of two concurrent technological species in different but nearby star systems is vanishingly small". For all we know there have been thousands of technological species in our galaxy, but never two at roughly the same time and roughly close together, and never will be. |
|
| ▲ | VladVladikoff 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This feels very defeatist to me. Technology continues to advance, exponentially. And there are hypothetical ultra fast space travel technologies that we haven’t yet been able to fabricate but could theoretically in the future. e.g. Alcubierre warp drive. |
| |
| ▲ | losteric 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Technology continues to advance, exponentially Why should we believe it will continue to advance exponentially? And even if it does, we many find none of the hypotheticals pans out - perhaps we advance exponentially and there is nothing feasible to reach even 0.01c | | |
| ▲ | notTooFarGone 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah it's always quite naïve to say technology will be always exponential. We only had like a few thousand years - if it's logarithmic we wouldn't know it for the next 10000 years. |
| |
| ▲ | krapp 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If the Alcubierre drive were possible, some civilization would have already discovered it, and we would see evidence of its use. This is certain to be the case with any kind of FTL travel, if such a thing is even possible. But when we observe the universe we see nothing. Therefore either no advanced life exists in the universe besides ourselves, which seems unlikely, or none have spread to space in any significant degree and FTL is either impossible or so difficult no one bothers. There doesn't seem to be a secret third thing that both satisfies our observations and obeys known physics. | | |
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | oneshtein 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Geminga? | | |
| ▲ | krapp 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Everything I read tells me it's a gamma ray pulsar. | | |
| ▲ | oneshtein 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Something like Alcubierre drive must move fast (0.1% of c at least), be very heavy and dense (to create protected environment inside), and emit lot of high energy gamma rays because a spacetime with negative energy will accelerate light a lot. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | nirav72 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More like technology evolves in spurts. Huge gains within a specific area for 2-3 decades and then only small incremental advancements for the next 2-3 decades. | | |
| ▲ | nobody9999 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >More like technology evolves in spurts. Huge gains within a specific area for 2-3 decades and then only small incremental advancements for the next 2-3 decades. I'd expect that the time scales between spurts, while getting shorter over the past 350 years or so, were generally much, much longer. We first started using stone tools more than 2.5 million years ago. We didn't start effectively using fire for another 500-750k years. It was another 1.75 million years before we began harvesting seasonal "crops" we identified in our nomadic travels, and another tens of thousands of years before we founded permanent agricultural settlements. Doing so (and the food surpluses enabled by such) allowed for specialization and R&D into stuff that wasn't directly related to food production. That really kicked off a technological spurt, which included writing -- a technology that was, perhaps, the biggest step forward, until Liebniz/Newton's Calculus. Given the immaturity of our current understanding of physics (Standard Model/General Relativity), biology (DNA research) and the like, it seems we're likely to continue without another spurt for quite some time. I, of course, could be wrong. But since history is often a good guide to the future, I don't think so. | |
| ▲ | justinator 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | More like technology evolves during global wars. Fixed that for you. Rev up those stealth fighters! |
| |
| ▲ | freakynit 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The fabric of spacetime itself sets the ultimate speed limit. Nothing can locally move through it faster than light. For example, gravitational waves ripple across the universe at light speed. Anything that exists within spacetime is bound by this rule. The only odd exception people point to is quantum entanglement, but while the correlations appear instantaneous, they can’t be used to send information faster than light. Sending matter is distant second. So, if we ever hope to travel faster than light, we wouldn’t do it by "outrunning" gravity. Instead, we’d need to find a way to manipulate spacetime itself, like bending, warping, or reshaping it ... since that, in the first place itself, is what is defining the limits of motion. | | | |
| ▲ | justinator 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Technology continues to advance, exponentially. Currently focusing on imaginary money crypto schemes and ML chatbots whose data centers use as much power as entire US states, sorry. | |
| ▲ | Ekaros 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think our recent forays to microscopic and sub-microscopic things like computers have really distorted our views. Just look at something like EV. Give say 10x efficiency(very high) increase and we are actually still faraway from even interplanetary travel. Physical world is big and getting from one point to other takes lot of energy and involves lot of mass. | |
| ▲ | Rover222 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Especially if we are actually on the cusp of ASI from self-improving AGI systems. That seems like the most likely scenario where technology emerges that we cannot currently fathom. (Big IF there, I know) |
|
|
| ▲ | imoverclocked 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I dislike either/or answers in such open-ended scenarios. It points to our lack of humility in the vast unknown. eg: maybe they exist(ed) but once a civilization gets advanced enough to build FTL-like travel, they invent AI and use it for warfare and then soon cease to exist. This would mean there are potentially many civilizations (and AI?) that are budding and could travel through the universe. eg: We aren't in an interesting enough place to bother visiting. eg: they exist and know about us but have "prime directive" (Ala: Star Trek) laws that state they can't make contact until we reach a stable enough civilization to invent warp drive (or some other advancement.) eg: There is some exotic reason that our pocket of the Milky Way is un-navigable. |
| |
| ▲ | bluGill 4 days ago | parent [-] | | We know enough physics to rule out any ftl travel. Assuming that is correct which seems very likely they can't get here, even radio signals is question able - even if radio signals can get here either they have already passed and their civialization (sun) is dead or ours will be dead by the time they arrive. | | |
| ▲ | oneshtein 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Cherenkov radiation is a proof, that FTL is possible. We just cannot accelerate enough. However, «burps» from blackholes are proof that blackholes can do that. To achieve singularity, outer layer of blackhole core must spin at a FTL speed anyway. | | |
| ▲ | uecker 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Cherenkov radiation shows that FTL is possible in a medium where light is slowed down below a the maximum possible speed allowed by special relativity. It does not show that FTL as usually understood is possible. | | |
|
|
|