60 billion planets in Milky Way may contain life

[Puppycow]

http://m.computerworld.com/s/articl...18&mm_ref=https://news.google.com/news?tab=wn

Sorry for the mobile link. If someone has a better one please add.

One possibility is that life may be extremely common, but intelligent life rare. Our own planet seems to suggest exactly that. If we define intelligent as being as intelligent as we are or more so, then only one species in the 3-odd billion-year history of life on Earth meets that definition.

Scientists from around the world have been scanning the heavens for other habitable planets to find an answer to the age-old question: Are we alone in the universe?

A study released Monday by a team of researchers from the University of Chicago and Northwestern University finds that the odds are good that we're not.

There may be 60 billion planets -- double the number cited in earlier studies --in the Milky Way galaxy alone that could support life, according to the study.

In its search,NASA has so far found only 10 or so potentially habitable planets in their search for Earth-like planets, which the space agency describes as small, rocky planets orbiting sun-like stars.

The latest study found that cloud cover that could affect planet climate doubles the number of potentially habitable planets orbiting red dwarfs, which are the most common type of stars in the universe.

"Most of the planets in the Milky Way orbit red dwarfs," said Nicolas Cowan, a Northwestern researcher. "A thermostat that makes such planets more clement means we don't have to look as far to find a habitable planet."

The Northwestern-University of Chicago team based their findings on computer simulations of cloud behavior on alien planets.

 

[McHrozni]

Unfortunately until we find solid proof of life other than the one on Earth, this are all speculations. There may be 60 billion planets that have conditions that permit life as we know it, but that's as far as we can go right now.

Of course, the rational argument is quite strong: life arose relatively quickly in the right conditions. But the fact we only have one sample we have no idea if this is a statistical anomaly (a set of highly unlikely events occurring in a short time), or perhaps a quirk where the many different though by themselves not terribly unlikely conditions were exactly right for a few (dozen?) million years by pure chance. Or maybe there was something else that occurred on Earth that is otherwise extremely rare that we don't know about yet.

We just don't know enough. The one example we have shows that life could be abundant, but that's all we have right now. Hopefully Mars rovers will uncover something that will give us another example

McHrozni

 

[Acleron]

Great!

We've found one, only 59,999,999,999 left.

 

[Mark6]

Great!

We've found one, only 59,999,999,999 left.

Notice the word "could". Mars and Venus could support life at some point in the past

 

[Acleron]

Notice the word "could". Mars and Venus could support life at some point in the past

I know, was trying to be optimistic

But it is figures like these that bring home how amazingly big this place is. For all the tremendous imaginations of sci-fi writers, none that I know of conceived of this number of planets that could be terraformed for our species.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://m.computerworld.com/s/articl...18&mm_ref=https://news.google.com/news?tab=wn

Sorry for the mobile link. If someone has a better one please add. ....

The abstract: STABILIZING CLOUD FEEDBACK DRAMATICALLY EXPANDS THE HABITABLE ZONE OF TIDALLY LOCKED PLANETS

The University's report: Cloud modeling expands estimate of life-supporting planets - Larger habitable zone suggests 60 billion planets could sustain water, life

 

[Caper]

It's so amazing to me. Millions of other histories.... stories of discovery and war.... probably planets of life we'd be amazed at what we see... while other planets we'd be amazed at the similarities.

 

[Dinwar]

The number could be 60 billion, could be 6. Why speculate? Until we start finding life, any number works as well as any other in this context.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The number could be 60 billion, could be 6. Why speculate? Until we start finding life, any number works as well as any other in this context.

You speculate as the evidence accumulates. The evidence no longer suggests 6. It suggests there are many more planets out there with the conditions to support life and we have plenty of evidence evolution was not a one-off event.

 

[mike3]

I know, was trying to be optimistic

But it is figures like these that bring home how amazingly big this place is. For all the tremendous imaginations of sci-fi writers, none that I know of conceived of this number of planets that could be terraformed for our species.

Would it be right to wipe out another biosphere just for our own use? If even some of those planets really do have life, then if we were to terraform those ones, that would be wiping out another biosphere. We're already doing a good job destroying the one we have...

 

[Aepervius]

We could be a black swan we could be a white swan. With a sample of 1 nobody can know. The only facts we know is that we similated a way to have planet which potentially support liquid water and temperate warmth, with stable enough orbit. We have not yet found *any* evidence whatsoever there is life on any planet discovered so far, or any other simulated planet.

When there is evidence, this stops being speculation. Until then we have no way whatsoever to know what color the earth swan is of.

 

[McHrozni]

We could be a black swan we could be a white swan. With a sample of 1 nobody can know.

If Earth is the only planet that has life on it, it's more of a pink swan with green triangles. And laser eyes

A somewhat relevant philosophical question: which would be more awe-inspiring to you? That we are the only living being in your universe, or that said universe is teeming with alien life?

McHrozni

 

[SezMe]

The number could be 60 billion, could be 6. Why speculate? Until we start finding life, any number works as well as any other in this context.

I can think of a couple of reasons right off the bat. First, it's fun. It can spark one's imagination (especially kids). Second, lots of discoveries and good science arose out of speculation. What if we did this? How does that work? Etc.

A somewhat relevant philosophical question: which would be more awe-inspiring to you? That we are the only living being in your universe, or that said universe is teeming with alien life?

That's an easy one for me. Teeming. It would be a huge disappointment to find out we're the only life form. How boring.

 

[McHrozni]

That's an easy one for me. Teeming. It would be a huge disappointment to find out we're the only life form. How boring.

I see I made an error above. I wanted to say "only planet with life forms", not "only living being".

I need more coffee

McHrozni

 

[Puppycow]

I see I made an error above. I wanted to say "only planet with life forms", not "only living being".

I need more coffee

McHrozni

My own preference would also be teeming. If we were alone that would be kind of awe-inspiring in a different way.

Which one would be better evidence of more compatible with the existence of a god? Or would it be irrelevant?

 

[Puppycow]

We could be a black swan we could be a white swan. With a sample of 1 nobody can know. The only facts we know is that we similated a way to have planet which potentially support liquid water and temperate warmth, with stable enough orbit. We have not yet found *any* evidence whatsoever there is life on any planet discovered so far, or any other simulated planet.

When there is evidence, this stops being speculation. Until then we have no way whatsoever to know what color the earth swan is of.

Is it only a sample of one, or do the other planets and moons in our solar system count?
They mostly appear to be lifeless, which suggests at least that lifeless planets probably outnumber planets with life.

Would it be right to wipe out another biosphere just for our own use? If even some of those planets really do have life, then if we were to terraform those ones, that would be wiping out another biosphere. We're already doing a good job destroying the one we have...

A good question. Perhaps it would be possible to live on some other planets without destroying the native biosphere. Some of them may be similar to our own, with water and an atmosphere containing oxygen due to the existence of plants. It's possible that aliens would have a very similar biology too.

 

[McHrozni]

My own preference would also be teeming. If we were alone that would be kind of awe-inspiring in a different way.

Certainly. Both options would be absolutely astounding, in their own, completely different ways
Although I find one thing significant: suppose we discover alien life and explore and study it. Eventually it would seem as insignificant as a new species of butterfly is now.

Being unique in existence wouldn't suffer from the same, no matter how much we'd know about the universe.

Which one would be better evidence of more compatible with the existence of a god? Or would it be irrelevant?

This is entirely dependent on your religion

From Judeo-Christian POV, it's that we'd be the only place with life in the universe. That life is abundant but intelligent life is unique to Earth would also be acceptable - possibly even better.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

A good question. Perhaps it would be possible to live on some other planets without destroying the native biosphere. Some of them may be similar to our own, with water and an atmosphere containing oxygen due to the existence of plants. It's possible that aliens would have a very similar biology too.

If there are 60 billion planets capable of supporting life, and suppose 6 billion of them do have biospheres, it's quite implausible that some of those won't be habitable for humans
I'd actually worry more about pathogens we'd have no immunity against. The same goes for the said biosphere, obviously.

McHrozni

 

[rjh01]

Is it only a sample of one, or do the other planets and moons in our solar system count?
They mostly appear to be lifeless, which suggests at least that lifeless planets probably outnumber planets with life.

<snip>

This is not a very good argument. Yes, most planets in the galaxy would almost certainly lifeless. On the other most stable stars would have a "goldilocks" zone where life is possible on a suitable planet. The big question is how many or what percentage of stars have a planet in this zone? On the one hand I am sure there would be many stars where the answer is zero. Maybe a gas giant migrated from the outer part of the system to the inner. That would do severe damage to the rest of the system. On the other hand even if the percentage is low that would still mean a huge number of planets in the correct zone.

Even then there are plenty of other reasons why there would be no life or any very basic forms of life on a planet in the correct zone. I keep hearing about the role of the moon in creating life on Earth. I sometimes wonder what would happen if the Earth had no large moon? Or if the earth had no magnetic field to protect the atmosphere.

Until we can detect oxygen in planets in other solar systems or some other test for life we can only make wild guesses on how many planets that actually contain life in the galaxy.

 

[gsmonks]

There is a component of the "life on other planets" line of thinking that parallels that of "time travel", which is to say, "It it were possible, why aren't they here?"

In the instance of time travel, if time travel were possible, people from the future would be visiting us right now. And given the furious rate of technological development, intelligent beings that (theoretically) are millions and perhaps billions of years ahead of us should have the technology to pop by for a visit, yet are conspicuous in their absence.

Earth has produced one highly intelligent species in its 4.54 billion years of existence out of the tens of millions of species it has produced, and there were a good many accidents along the way that facilitated our ascent. For example, posture and diet changed the shape of the head and skull and increased the size of the brain. And these are but two examples of many. There are other matters, such as the opposable thumb, our ability to vocalise, binocular vision, mobility, dexterity, facility, the emergence of visualisation and types of memory, the list is a very long one.

SETI itself is problematic, as it is purely anthropomorphic in its collective thinking. SETI is essentially looking for us out there, which is a huge mistake. The truth is that we can't begin to imagine what to look for.

It has to be remembered of the electronic tools we use that they are extensions of what it is to be human. For example, a hammer extends the hand for a specialised purpose. It is a tool built by humans for human use. The same is true of an electronic megaphone. It's a tool built by humans to project the human voice. The image on the screen you're looking at right now is an illusion that is geared to the way in which the human eye works. An entity with an optical sense wholly unlike ours would see nothing but an annoying flickering.

Then there is the matter of our senses. They evolved because of set conditions here on Earth. Lop off our arms and legs and you're essentially left with a worm, with an anus at one end, a mouth at the other, and the senses arranged to guide the mouth towards food. In fact our senses evolved primarily out of the quest for food. Second to that was avoiding becoming food ourselves.

Other creatures on other worlds will have originated out of situations we can not begin to imagine. Our imaginings thus far, and such as they are, are purely anthropomorphic. We can't see the forest for ourselves, as it were.

Language itself is anthropomorphic. For something to mean something, it must mean something to us, and for something to be meaningful to us, it must be us.

An archaeologist interviewed on CBC Radio many years ago said something that stuck with me. He remarked, on having deciphered the language and stories carved in stone of ancient Mexicans that, "It took many years of hard work to decipher the message. The real discovery, however, was that the message was not intended for us."

What he was referring to was that, despite having deciphered the ancient inscriptions, the thinking of the ancient culture was so far removed from us moderns as to be incomprehensible.

And that is an example of ourselves confronting our own past. Couple that with the fact that we can't communicate in a meaningful way with the other intelligent life on this planet and you begin to see the true magnitude of confronting the problem of making contact with truly alien species on other worlds.

SETI is naive. SETI is wishful thinking. SETI is anthropomorphic. I wish them the best of luck, but I don't think we have the tool set yet to comprehend what is meant by the word "alien".

 

[Dinwar]

I can think of a couple of reasons right off the bat. First, it's fun. It can spark one's imagination (especially kids). Second, lots of discoveries and good science arose out of speculation. What if we did this? How does that work? Etc.

I'll grant that it's fun, but in order to spark scientific investigation there has to be something concrete to come out of it. Unfortunately, we're not at the stage where we can do that just yet. There are too many variables.

There is a component of the "life on other planets" line of thinking that parallels that of "time travel", which is to say, "It it were possible, why aren't they here?"

Not really. If I were forced to guess, I'd guess that life on other planets is probably overwhelmingly unicellular. Remember, it took several billion years for multicellular life to arise on this planet. Life appears to be easy--it arises as soon as it's possible for life TO arise (the first evidence we have of life is pretty much as old as the first sedimentary deposits). Multicellular life is, apparently, much, much harder.

SETI itself is problematic, as it is purely anthropomorphic in its collective thinking. SETI is essentially looking for us out there, which is a huge mistake. The truth is that we can't begin to imagine what to look for.

While I agree that they're focused too much on finding us, and not on finding life as such, I disagree with your assessment of the search as niave and the rest. I also disagree with the notion that we can't begin to guess what to look for. We can be certain that the aliens will not violate hte laws of physics, for example. We know they metabolize. We know that random noise isn't going to work for communications (even encrypted communications aren't random). And then there's the rational assessment of what we CAN look for. Okay, yes, we'll miss some stuff if we only do what we can do--but it's what we can do, so let's do it and see. The cost is minimal (statistically speaking, the addition of SETI funds to any social welfare program would be insignificant, and in fact would be within the error bars and therefore not, strictly speaking, detectable), no one is forced to do it, and the potential pay-off is pretty high. I think they should expand it, yes--but to argue that it's not worth the minimal time and effort is rather untennable.

 

[Peterson]

My own preference would also be teeming. If we were alone that would be kind of awe-inspiring in a different way.

Which one would be better evidence of more compatible with the existence of a god? Or would it be irrelevant?

Irrelevant in my opinion with regards to God.

I may be misremembering but I think Time by Stephen Baxter explored the idea that we are the only intelligent creature in the universe (except for some runaway genetically altered squid). I found that more awe inspiring than one with lots of living things.

 

[gsmonks]

I'll grant that it's fun, but in order to spark scientific investigation there has to be something concrete to come out of it. Unfortunately, we're not at the stage where we can do that just yet. There are too many variables.

Not really. If I were forced to guess, I'd guess that life on other planets is probably overwhelmingly unicellular. Remember, it took several billion years for multicellular life to arise on this planet. Life appears to be easy--it arises as soon as it's possible for life TO arise (the first evidence we have of life is pretty much as old as the first sedimentary deposits). Multicellular life is, apparently, much, much harder.

While I agree that they're focused too much on finding us, and not on finding life as such, I disagree with your assessment of the search as niave and the rest. I also disagree with the notion that we can't begin to guess what to look for. We can be certain that the aliens will not violate hte laws of physics, for example. We know they metabolize. We know that random noise isn't going to work for communications (even encrypted communications aren't random). And then there's the rational assessment of what we CAN look for. Okay, yes, we'll miss some stuff if we only do what we can do--but it's what we can do, so let's do it and see. The cost is minimal (statistically speaking, the addition of SETI funds to any social welfare program would be insignificant, and in fact would be within the error bars and therefore not, strictly speaking, detectable), no one is forced to do it, and the potential pay-off is pretty high. I think they should expand it, yes--but to argue that it's not worth the minimal time and effort is rather untennable.

You're inadvertently making my point.

We know they metabolize? We know no such thing. "Life as we know it" begins and ends at "life as we know it". Life as we know it is us. Life as we don't know it is something we can't begin to imagine.

The communications devices you're referring to are Human communications devices. You may as well try to use them to communicate with frogs and trees.

Star Trek inspired a lot of people to become modern-day aerospace scientists and astronauts, but it also served to indoctrinate them into the anthropomorphic mind-set. There were no aliens in Star Trek. There were just humans in silly costumes behaving like humans.

Gene Roddenberry himself said that trying to imagine what aliens were really like was pointless because he was in the business of writing stories that meant something to his viewers.

 

[Corsair 115]

As I've pointed out numerous times now, one hardly needs dozens, hundreds, or thousands of advanced or intelligent species within a single galaxy to have a universe teeming with such life. Given that there are something on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the universe, even if there was on average only one intelligent/advanced species present per galaxy that means there'd be 100 billion such intelligent/advanced species in the universe. I'd say 100 billion is a pretty darned big number, and represents a hell of a lot of advanced/intelligent lifeforms.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

There is a component of the "life on other planets" line of thinking that parallels that of "time travel", which is to say, "It it were possible, why aren't they here?" ...

Distance and physics of crossing those distances.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

There is a component of the "life on other planets" line of thinking that parallels that of "time travel", which is to say, "It it were possible, why aren't they here?"

Sounds like Fermi's Paradox.

With ETIs, there are a number of possible answers to why they're not here (why they haven't manifested to us somehow), but only one of those many possible answers is that they don't exist.

The best answer is that they might have just missed us in astronomical terms (off by a mere million years, for example). As Ginger says, things are spread out in space and time.

It could also be that the technology to become virtually ubiquitous in the galaxy--or at least apparent to a civilization like ours anywhere in the galaxy-- is not possible.

It could be that it's possible, but no civilization ever lasts long enough to develop and realize that technology.

It could be that it's possible and civilizations do last that long, but no civilization ever finds it something they wish to do (economics, xenophobia, lack or curiosity, the fact that interstellar flight is essentially one-way, etc.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As I've pointed out numerous times now, one hardly needs dozens, hundreds, or thousands of advanced or intelligent species within a single galaxy to have a universe teeming with such life. Given that there are something on the order of 100 billion galaxies in the universe, even if there was on average only one intelligent/advanced species present per galaxy that means there'd be 100 billion such intelligent/advanced species in the universe. I'd say 100 billion is a pretty darned big number, and represents a hell of a lot of advanced/intelligent lifeforms.

True, but in that case, they would almost certainly never be able to encounter one another.

Even if each galaxy gave rise to 100 advanced civilizations that each lasted 100 thousand years, spread that out over ~14 billion years and over the distances even within a galaxy, and it's unlikely that enough would exist at the same time in close enough proximity to encounter one another.

So really, these Drake equation factors really do matter.

 

[Acleron]

If there are 60 billion planets capable of supporting life, and suppose 6 billion of them do have biospheres, it's quite implausible that some of those won't be habitable for humans
I'd actually worry more about pathogens we'd have no immunity against. The same goes for the said biosphere, obviously.

McHrozni

If some alien could usefully eat us, that would be interesting as it implies that amino acids, carbohydrates and lipids are required for life, or at least the life we find.

Viruses that can infect us would be even more fascinating because the basic genetic code for protein expression would have to be exactly the same.

 

[McHrozni]

We know they metabolize? We know no such thing.

They either metabolize or violate the laws of physics.

The communications devices you're referring to are Human communications devices. You may as well try to use them to communicate with frogs and trees.

You can use a microphone to communicate with frogs. Trees are trickier and use a different method (chemicals), which we could emulate, if we wanted.
Neither would be useful for any sort of interstellar communication, so I fail to see an issue with SETI. If they use only chemicals to communicate then too bad, the only way to communicate with them is to travel there.

Do you know of a theoretically possible method of communication between stars that doesn't involve light?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

If some alien could usefully eat us, that would be interesting as it implies that amino acids, carbohydrates and lipids are required for life, or at least the life we find.
Viruses that can infect us would be even more fascinating because the basic genetic code for protein expression would have to be exactly the same.

Life we find may be a crucial component here. We can't even adequately define life yet

That said, the concern about pathogens was about planets that would already have a biosphere habitable for humans. Yes, I do presume that such life would use the same building blocks as we do. It is unlikely that we'd encounter viruses dangerous to us, but bacteria (-like) pathogens could be a danger.

McHrozni

 

[LSSBB]

They either metabolize or violate the laws of physics.



You can use a microphone to communicate with frogs. Trees are trickier and use a different method (chemicals), which we could emulate, if we wanted.
Neither would be useful for any sort of interstellar communication, so I fail to see an issue with SETI. If they use only chemicals to communicate then too bad, the only way to communicate with them is to travel there.

Do you know of a theoretically possible method of communication between stars that doesn't involve light?
McHrozni

This is the closest anyone is coming to establishing a faster-than-light communication method, the drawback to overcome is causality:

Time-twisting test stuck in limbo

 

[gsmonks]

They either metabolize or violate the laws of physics.



You can use a microphone to communicate with frogs. Trees are trickier and use a different method (chemicals), which we could emulate, if we wanted.
Neither would be useful for any sort of interstellar communication, so I fail to see an issue with SETI. If they use only chemicals to communicate then too bad, the only way to communicate with them is to travel there.

Do you know of a theoretically possible method of communication between stars that doesn't involve light?

McHrozni

Youse is missing my point, you is, you is.

Our technology evolved out of what it is to be Human. Our tools are extensions of us.

We can't begin to imaging alien physics and technology because they would have evolved to accommodate beings that are nothing like us.

It's not a case of violating the laws of physics. It's a case of differing lines of causality from which technologies arise. Our technologies are a case of building upon our first primitive tools. The tools in question were useful to beings like ourselves. Very different beings would start out with very different initial tools, and the chain of events leading from that would cause technologies to arise that could very well lead to an understanding, or understandings, of the universe and its working that we can't even begin to imagine.

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds. The way our minds evolved caused us to "recognise" certain types of patterns, and the structuring of those patterns entails our bodies of knowledge.

The patterns we've made out of "what is" are extremely one-dimensional, and are put together in terms of how human perception, conditions and actions operate. The results we get are predetermined because our actions and thoughts work a certain way, as do our perceptions and our senses.

The sciences as we understand them evolved out of use, specifically our use, and each branch of science entails a chain of evidence and events, each link of which is contingent upon what it is to be human.

 

[BadBoy]

We could be a black swan we could be a white swan. With a sample of 1 nobody can know. The only facts we know is that we similated a way to have planet which potentially support liquid water and temperate warmth, with stable enough orbit. We have not yet found *any* evidence whatsoever there is life on any planet discovered so far, or any other simulated planet.

When there is evidence, this stops being speculation. Until then we have no way whatsoever to know what color the earth swan is of.

Science can make predictions too. As long as the predictions can in principle be tested then isnt it still good science. The prediction is based on statistical analysis in this case, and it is what it is. Though its not experiment it is a prediction based on science and observation so more than just pure speculation, but less than 100% certainty - though what in science is every 100% certain. Close but not 100%

 

[Roboramma]

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds.

No.

 

[Mark6]

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds.

While that may have been true at the time of Mendeleyev, it most certainly is not true any more -- and has not been true for close to a century. We know the structure of electron shells which is what defines how elements interact, and the reason why shells fill up in the manner they do. And why it is periodic.

 

[Dinwar]

The Periodic Table Of The Elements is such an example. Its makeup is skewed entirely to the manner in which we're able to interact and use the elements and chemical compounds.

As others have said, this is actually a perfect example of something that can establish communication between us. The periodic table (which is, as I understand it, now without any gaps from Hydrogen to the heaviest element known--a first in history!) is based upon fundamental properties of the atoms that make up the elements. There may be some quibbling about where to put Hydrogen, and the aliens may draw it differently, but the shape of the periodic table is based on proton count and orbital structure, two things that will ALWAYS be the same, in EVERY part of the universe that life can come from (black holes and neutron stars are the exception, and life can't arise in either case).

EVERY periodic table in EVERY civilization will ALWAYS have the same information. The only way around that is to argue that the laws of physics aren't constant.

A similar bit of universal data would be wavelength of excited atoms. Hydrogen will always yield the same wavelength when you excite it with the same amount of energy. One quanta of light from one excited hydrogen electron will have the same traits here, in orbit around Alpha Century, in the Andromeda galaxy, and everywhere else hydrogen atoms can survive. This makes it something that both we and any space-fairing civilization would be able to use to establish communications. Okay, they're going to call it something different--but we can detect the wavelength,a nd it's always going to be the same, giving us common ground upon which to base attempts to communicate.

 

[LSSBB]

Unfortunately until we find solid proof of life other than the one on Earth, this are all speculations. There may be 60 billion planets that have conditions that permit life as we know it, but that's as far as we can go right now.

Of course, the rational argument is quite strong: life arose relatively quickly in the right conditions. But the fact we only have one sample we have no idea if this is a statistical anomaly (a set of highly unlikely events occurring in a short time), or perhaps a quirk where the many different though by themselves not terribly unlikely conditions were exactly right for a few (dozen?) million years by pure chance. Or maybe there was something else that occurred on Earth that is otherwise extremely rare that we don't know about yet.

We just don't know enough. The one example we have shows that life could be abundant, but that's all we have right now. Hopefully Mars rovers will uncover something that will give us another example

McHrozni

I will agree that with a sample size of one, we really don't have much an idea what the real numbers are for life elsewhere. However, a recent discovery today should, IMO, increase the likelihood that life does arrive elsewhere.

Weird Quantum Tunneling Enables 'Impossible' Space Chemistry

 

[Aepervius]

That's an easy one for me. Teeming. It would be a huge disappointment to find out we're the only life form. How boring.

Same here. it is already disappointing to know our chance of visiting any , or even simple contact it vanishingly small is already sad. But having confirmation we are alone ? Heart wrenching.

 

[Aepervius]

Is it only a sample of one, or do the other planets and moons in our solar system count?
They mostly appear to be lifeless, which suggests at least that lifeless planets probably outnumber planets with life.


A good question. Perhaps it would be possible to live on some other planets without destroying the native biosphere. Some of them may be similar to our own, with water and an atmosphere containing oxygen due to the existence of plants. It's possible that aliens would have a very similar biology too.

You would rather go with a solar system counting rather than planet counting. Does it erally matter if there is 4 or 40 planet in our solar system ? I don#t think it changes the underlying reasonning : we only have a sample of 1: us.

 

[gsmonks]

While that may have been true at the time of Mendeleyev, it most certainly is not true any more -- and has not been true for close to a century. We know the structure of electron shells which is what defines how elements interact, and the reason why shells fill up in the manner they do. And why it is periodic.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the manner in which we utilise and manipulate the elements on the periodic table in order to make things that are useful to us.

The elements we use most, for instance, are those that are the most stable and plentiful in our environment. Every bit of technological progress stems from the initial conditions we began with. We have no idea where our technological progress might have ended up had the initial conditions been different. We would have ended up with other technologies that work far differently from those we use today.

The manipulation of information itself would bear zero resemblance if you change the initial environment and are dealing with beings having senses wholly different from our own.

Perception in this matter is highly skewed because all life on planet Earth is related.

There is also the matter of how we interact with the subatomic world. The view we have of things subatomic is such that we still don't know what we're dealing with. The latest theory of the electron includes the "electron shell", but we don't know what the electron shell is, or even if it is a truly accurate representation of what we're dealing with. Not many years ago we had a pretty good working model that had electrons being little thingies that orbited nuclei like minute planets.

Despite being 100% wrong, that "understanding" was enough to allow us to build the atomic bomb. We're now in a day and age when the Periodic Table itself will be replaced by something very different. Fields and wave forms seem to be what we're really dealing with, but there are aspects of subatomic structure that as yet defy analysis and understanding.

The point being that there are almost endless ways to "understand" and "explain" the subatomic world because at the present time we're dealing with working approximations, not exact knowledge.

Because of that, there are a great number of things we don't know when it comes to manipulating the subatomic world. And when you're fumbling around in the dark, which is really what we're doing, you're basically bashing and thrashing around until something reveals itself to us. That's an important distinction. Other senses that work in wholly different ways are going to pick up on things we're completely blind to.

If you think the Periodic Table is written in stone, then you don't really understand what you're dealing with.