Life in the universe

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#1
Well, there's a site I really enjoyed back in the days and I recommend it to everyone:
Theories with Problems by Keith Mayes
It contains a few awesome things to read.

However while browsing one of these I came across something that you might find interesting. Chances of life being elsewhere in the universe by simple statistics:

The statitistics

1) The number of galaxies. An estimated 50 billion galaxies are visible with modern telescopes and the total number in the universe must surely exceed this number by a huge factor, but we will be conservative and simply double it. That's 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the universe.

2) The number of stars in an average galaxy. As many as hundreds of billions in each galaxy.

Lets call it just 100 billion.

That's 100,000,000,000 stars per galaxy.

3)The number of stars in the universe.

So the total number of stars in the universe is roughly 100 billion x 100 billion.

That's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars, 10 thousand, billion, billion. Properly known as 10 sextillion. And that's a very conservative estimate.

4) The number of stars that have planetary systems. The original extra-solar system planet hunting technology dictated that a star needed to be to close to us for a planet to be detected, usually by the stars 'wobble'. Better technology that allows us to measure the dimming of a stars brightness when a planet crosses its disk has now revolutionised planet hunting and new planets are being discovered at an ever increasing rate. So far (August 2003) around 100 have been discovered so we have very little data to work on for this estimate. Even so, most cosmologists believe that planetary formation around a star is quite common place. For the sake of argument let us say it's not and rate it at only one in a million and only one planet in each system, as we want a conservative estimate, not an exaggerated one. That calculation results in:

10,000,000,000,000,000 planets in the universe. Ten million, billion, as a conservative estimate.

5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million. Simple division results in:

10,000,000,000 planets in the universe capable of producing life. Ten billion!



For another approach I recommend The Drake Equation. This states that the number of communicating civilisations in our galaxy (note, our Galaxy only, not the universe) likely depends on a number of factors which must combine to yield a habitable planet where life has the chance to develop to a certain level of technological know-how. These factors include the rate of formation of stars like the Sun, the fraction of those with planets, the fraction of Earth- like planets, the fraction of such planets where life develops, the fraction of those where life becomes intelligent, the fraction of intelligent species who can communicate in a way we could detect, and the lifetime of the communicating civilisations. As you may imagine, There is a lot of debate about reasonable values for most of these factors.

Frank Drake's own estimate puts the number of communicating civilisations in just our Galaxy alone at 10,000.

Even though the figures I have used cannot of course be considered to be accurate, at least the figure of 10 sextillion stars in the universe is most definitely an underestimate. The number of life supporting planets that may be orbiting those stars is impossible to say, but by any reasonable estimate must surely run into the millions, if not billions. This is easy to justify on the basis that following the Big Bang the most abundant material in the universe was hydrogen and helium, being the most simple atoms, and this material forms the bulk of the raw ingredients for star formation. All stars begin life in the same manner, by the gravitational drawing together of these basic elements that then gravitationally collapse to form a star. Apart from size, all stars begin pretty much the same, with the remnants of the hydrogen and helium clouds that are not absorbed into the stars forming an orbiting disc that goes on to form the protoplanets. With this same process repeated many billions of times it would be only statistically reasonable to expect that many planets would have similar characteristics, and would be capable of supporting life of one form or another, just as our planet does.

In order to answer the question of the existence of extraterrestrial life, it need exist on only ONE other planet. Given those odds, how can it not exist?


Update: August 2003

Astronomers have published a new estimate of the total number of stars in the universe. The international group of astronomers presented their findings at the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union in Sydney, Australia. The figure they have arrived at is 70 sextillion, seven times higher than my estimate (hey, at least I got the right number of zeros!). This figure does not represent the actual total number of stars in the universe, just those that are in range of our telescopes. The actual number could be very much larger.
Source:
Is there any other life in the Universe?

Having in mind that most planets in the universe are way older than our earth this estimate really made me think.
 
#2
5) The number planets capable of supporting life. Let's assume that this is very rare among planets and rate it at only one in a million
That would be the point where we stop dealing with "simple statistics" and begin pure guesswork.

We don't know how life began on this planet, so we can't really estimate what fraction of those planets that we consider to be capable of supporting actually have any.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#3
That would be the point where we stop dealing with "simple statistics" and begin pure guesswork.

We don't know how life began on this planet, so we can't really estimate what fraction of those planets that we consider to be capable of supporting actually have any.
Well, we don't exactly know what conditions exactly does a planet have to meet to be able to develop life. However I guess that this assumption was based on known planets that look like our planet - with proper temperatures, atmosphere etc. to support already created life forms. It's guess work because we don't really know what does it take for a new life form to be created though, sure.
However the point that made me wonder is that in 2003 there were already around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars "in our sight".
Also 10,000,000,000,000,000 planets that have similar conditions to our planet. Maybe we are the only ones and something that initiated life on earth may have happened only here but with so many other planets that seem safe to live it seems that there has to be life on at least some of them.
 

Bobby Sands

Well-Known Member
#4
arent they planning on searching for life on one of Jupiter's (i think) moons? This moon seems to have all the characteristics necessary for the formation of life. This moon has an icey surface and they hope that within the next two decades or so they can start melting through the ice and begin searching for life in the water underneath.

i remember reading something about that in a magazine a while back.

It is indeed one of Jupiter's moons-Europa. cant believe i forgot that name.
 

_carmi

me, myself & us
#6
why not? if there is life on Earth, it is highly possible there is life somewhere in the universe. will we discover it? probably not. living creatures on Earth aren't so damn unique that there aren't any other living creatures elsewhere in the universe.
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#7
yeah that is the problem. Even if we traveled almost at the speed of light none of us would reach most of those planets. Simply because our life is too short and these planets are too far away.
 

tupac4li4e

Active Member
#10
:)
That would be the point where we stop dealing with "simple statistics" and begin pure guesswork.

We don't know how life began on this planet, so we can't really estimate what fraction of those planets that we consider to be capable of supporting actually have any.
Isn't it all pretty much guesswork in regards to this topic.

Either way in my opinion, if you (by you I mean everybody) think we are the only living beings in this universe, you should probably best turn off your TV for a while, and just start to connect with nature for a while as humans once did back in the day.

To think, (well who can even get their head around the size of the universe according to our scientists) that it's that big, and for us to be the only life, is very being very narrow minded - IMO. If we evolved the way our scientists say we did, (which fundementally I have always had a slight problem with, but thats just me) then it's a bit nieve to think it couldn't have happened somewhere else too.

On the religious flip side, if we all, or at least each nation came form an "adam and eve" type of origin, then too it would be a bit nieve to think that it could not happen somewhere else.
 

tupac4li4e

Active Member
#11
why not? if there is life on Earth, it is highly possible there is life somewhere in the universe. will we discover it? probably not. living creatures on Earth aren't so damn unique that there aren't any other living creatures elsewhere in the universe.
That's true, I wonder if it's completely way too far fetched to consider another "earth" somewhere in the universe, a very similar planet and inhabitants to our own besides, we have proven it can be done. I always thought if there is life out there they'd be totally different from us, but maybe not you know :idea:
 
#12
To think, (well who can even get their head around the size of the universe according to our scientists) that it's that big, and for us to be the only life, is very being very narrow minded - IMO.
It would be narrow minded to believe that we're the only life in the universe, but it's not narrow minded to accept that possibility.

As unlikely as it might sound, we could be alone. We don't know how life came from non-life on this planet, so we can't really estimate how rare a process it is.

If we evolved the way our scientists say we did, (which fundementally I have always had a slight problem with, but thats just me)
Surprise surprise...

then it's a bit nieve to think it couldn't have happened somewhere else too.
But we're not talking about evolution, we're talking about the process before evolution. We're talking about abiogenesis, life forming on a planet that previously had no life. We don't understand that half as well as we do evolution, and it's unlikely we ever will.

Unless, perhaps, we manage to observe abiogenesis on another planet...
 

masta247

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#13
Yeah so we can fairly estimate the amount of planets that could support life but we have to know what does it take to form a new life and only then we can estimate on how many of them that could have happened. Sure it might be that it happened only here on earth but some of the "biggest" theories claim that life on earth was brought here by an asteroid. That's why I think it's important to understand that there are so many planets in our universe that could potentially have life on them, even if it came from the outside.
 

tupac4li4e

Active Member
#15
True that

Yeah so we can fairly estimate the amount of planets that could support life but we have to know what does it take to form a new life and only then we can estimate on how many of them that could have happened. Sure it might be that it happened only here on earth but some of the "biggest" theories claim that life on earth was brought here by an asteroid. That's why I think it's important to understand that there are so many planets in our universe that could potentially have life on them, even if it came from the outside.
Indeed, indeed.

Hey, you knocked out any innocent joggers lately ? lol.
 

Cooper

Well-Known Member
#17
I believe there is/was/will be life somewhere in the universe. I think it's both scary and unlikely (but not impossible) that we are alone. The problem is time. On a astrological scale the evolution of humans is almost unfathomably minute, much less the development of communication throughout space. There's also the chance that any life is too distant/different/advanced(or not) to communicate with in any meaningful way.

What's to say that life that is sufficiently advanced wouldn't see us as vastly inferior and not even worth trying to communicate with? It has been compared to us trying to communicate with ants.
 

tupac4li4e

Active Member
#19
I believe there is/was/will be life somewhere in the universe. I think it's both scary and unlikely (but not impossible) that we are alone. The problem is time. On a astrological scale the evolution of humans is almost unfathomably minute, much less the development of communication throughout space. There's also the chance that any life is too distant/different/advanced(or not) to communicate with in any meaningful way.

What's to say that life that is sufficiently advanced wouldn't see us as vastly inferior and not even worth trying to communicate with? It has been compared to us trying to communicate with ants.
I would have to agree.... judging by the majority on this forum alone, if you averaged it out over the entire human race, yep we are pretty fuckin stupid, lol.

:)
 

Jokerman

Well-Known Member
#20
All of the chemicals that we are based upon exist in abundance in naturally occurring environments throughout our galaxy of 100 billion stars and throughout the universe of hundreds of billions of similar galaxies.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top