Where is everybody? Doing the maths on extraterrestrial life

During a lunch in the summer of 1950, physicists Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and Herbert York were chatting about a recent New Yorker cartoon depicting aliens abducting trash cans in flying saucers. Suddenly, Fermi blurted out, “Where is everybody?” He reasoned: “Since there are likely many other technological…

3654891414_a4a3dae010_b-1316053256
Are we getting closer to solving one of life’s greatest mysteries? jcoterhals

During a lunch in the summer of 1950, physicists Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller and Herbert York were chatting about a recent New Yorker cartoon depicting aliens abducting trash cans in flying saucers. Suddenly, Fermi blurted out, “Where is everybody?”

He reasoned: “Since there are likely many other technological civilisations in the Milky Way galaxy, and since in a few tens of thousands of years at most they could have explored or even colonised many distant planets, why don’t we see any evidence of even a single extraterrestrial civilisation?”

This has come to be known as Fermi’s Paradox.

Clearly the question of whether other civilisations exist is one of the most important questions of modern science. Any discovery of a distant civilisation – say by analysis of microwave data – would rank as among the most far-reaching of all scientific discoveries.

Drake equation

At a 1960 conference regarding extraterrestrial intelligence, Frank Drake (1930 —) sketched out what is now the Drake equation, estimating the number of civilisations in the Milky Way with which we could potentially communicate:

Drake equation

where

N = number of civilisations in our galaxy that can communicate.

R* = average rate of star formation per year in galaxy.

fp = fraction of those stars that have planets.

ne = average number of planets that can support life, per star that has planets.

fl = fraction of the above that eventually develop life.

fi = fraction of the above that eventually develop intelligent life.

fc = fraction of civilisations that develop technology that signals existence into space.

L = length of time such civilisations release detectable signals into space.

The result? Drake estimated ten such civilisations were out there somewhere in the Milky Way.

This analysis, led to the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) project, looking for radio transmissions in a region of the electromagnetic spectrum thought best suited for interstellar communication.

But after 50 years of searching, using increasingly powerful equipment, nothing has been found.

So where is everybody?

Proposed solutions to Fermi’s paradox

Numerous scientists have examined Fermi’s paradox and proposed solutions. The following is a list of some of the proposed solutions, and common rejoinders:

  • Such civilisations are here, or are observing us, but are under orders not to disclose their existence.

Common rejoinder: This explanation (known as the “zookeeper’s theory”) is preferred by some scientists including, for instance, the late Carl Sagan. But it falls prey to the fact that it would take just one member of an extraterrestrial society to break the pact of silence – and this would seem inevitable.

  • Such civilisations have been here and planted seeds of life, or perhaps left messages in DNA.

Common rejoinder: The notion that life began on Earth from bacterial spores or the like that originated elsewhere, known as the “panspermia theory“, only pushes the origin of life problem to some other star system – scientists see no evidence in DNA sequences of anything artificial.

  • Such civilisations exist, but are too far away.

Common rejoinder: A sufficiently advanced civilisation could send probes to distant stars, which could scout out suitable planets, land and construct copies of themselves, using the latest software beamed from home.

So the entire Milky Way galaxy could be explored within, at most, a few million years.

  • Such civilisations exist, but have lost interest in interstellar engagement.

Common rejoinder: As with the zookeeper theory, this would require each civilisation to forever lack interest in communication and transportation – and someone would most likely break the pact of silence.

  • Such civilisations are calling, but we don’t recognise the signal.

Common rejoinder: This explanation doesn’t apply to signals sent with the direct purpose of communicating to nascent technological societies. Again, it is hard to see how a galactic society could enforce a global ban.

  • Civilisations invariably self-destruct.

Common rejoinder: This contingency is already figured into the Drake equation (the L term, above). In any event, we have survived at least 100 years of technological adolescence, and have managed (until now) not to destroy ourselves in a nuclear or biological apocalypse.

Relatively soon we will colonise the moon and Mars, and our long-term survival will no longer rely on Earth.

  • Earth is a unique planet in fostering long-lived ecosystems resulting in intelligent life.

Common rejoinder: Perhaps, but the latest studies, in particular the detections of extrasolar planets point in the opposite direction. Environments like ours appear quite common.

  • We are alone in the Milky Way galaxy. Some scientists further conclude we are alone in the entire observable universe.

Common rejoinder: This conclusion flies in the face of the “principle of mediocrity,” namely the presumption, popular since the time of Copernicus, that there’s nothing special about human society or environment.

Numerous other proposed solutions and rejoinders are given in by Stephen Webb in his 2002 book, If the Universe Is Teeming with Aliens … Where is Everybody?.

Two of Drake’s key terms – fp (the fraction of stars that have planets) and ne (the average number of planets that can support life, per star that has planets) are subject to measurement.

Scientists once thought stable planetary systems and Earth-like planets were a rarity. But recent evidence suggests otherwise.

Thanks to Kepler and other projects, these two terms have been found to have reasonable values, although not quite as optimistic as Drake and his colleagues first estimated.

With every new research finding in the area of extrasolar planets and possible extraterrestrial living organisms, the mystery of Fermi’s paradox deepens.

“Where is everybody?” is a question that now carries even greater resonance.

An extended version of this article first appeared at Math Drudge.

Join the conversation

22 Comments sorted by

  1. Zvyozdochka

    logged in via Twitter

    "Drake estimated ten such civilisations were out there somewhere in the Milky Way."

    Isn't the Milky Way ~100,000 light years across? If we've been searching for 50 years, maybe 20 of those intensively, for a possible 10 counter parties aren't we still at the low end of probability to find them?

    What am I missing?

    report
    1. John Griffiths

      Retired

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      Exactly! And the SETI crowd seem to have ignored the fact that the development of any other populated intelligent planets may just be out of sync with that of Earth by millions of years.

      report
    2. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      What you're missing is that 100,000 years is small compared to how long stars and planets have been forming in the Milky Way. If the numbers Drake plugged in are right, there have on average been several civilisations broadcasting at any given moment for millions of years. Which of those we should happen to see looking right now depends on how far away they were. We're not only going to see those that have transmitted since we started looking.

      report
    3. Peter Miller

      Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      Plus, as I understand it, we've not been looking for low-power radio frequencies for very long. If we assume that Earth hosts a 'typical' civilization, then we've being very optimistic looking for some kind of purpose-built broadcast beacon. After all - <em>we're</em> not doing anything like that, so why would we expect the same of ET?

      report
    4. Derek Bolton

      Retired s/w engineer

      In reply to Zvyozdochka

      Surely the major uncertainties in the equation are fl and fi. We really have very little idea how large they are. Our own existence is not much of a clue - because of the anthropic principle.

      ne, fi, fl and fc are not entirely separable. There will be different degrees of suitability for life. The product ne*fl*fi*fc should really be an integral across these possibilities.

      There is also the possibility of multiple intelligent life forms/civilisations arising serially on the same planet. This could be taken into account by a suitable adjustment to fi, fc or L.

      report
  2. Ken Fabian

    Mr

    There seem to be a lot of assumptions here.

    "Relatively soon we will colonise the moon and Mars, and our long-term survival will no longer rely on Earth." - I like a good sci-fi yarn but I don't kid myself that there's anything inevitable about colonising space. Fail to sort out our assorted messes here on Earth and such grand schemes are unlikely to stay well beyond our reach - and I can't see widespread support for any misguided Arcs into space to carry on our kind because we're making such a…

    Read more
    1. Eclipse Now

      Manager of design firm

      In reply to Ken Fabian

      //Also, if it truly were possible to cross the distances between distant stars, perhaps they might be wise enough to be wary of attracting the attention of such flawed 'civilisations' as Humanity's.//
      You made some sensible remarks above but this last one doesn't seem to make much sense to me anyway. If they've conquered interstellar travel then surely we have far more to fear from them than they do from us?

      report
    2. Eclipse Now

      Manager of design firm

      In reply to Ken Fabian

      In the movie Contact we see our radio and television programs beaming out to space, and this alerts the aliens to our presence. How far would these signals go? Is this what SETI are looking for, Alien TV chatter across the stars, or something purpose built for broadcasting? Something more powerful? I ask because a few years back I went to the Melbourne planetarium. Harrison Ford narrated this CGI planetarium movie (anyone see it?) about how big our galaxy was, and how our galaxy was only one of tens of billions of galaxies. Anyway, here's the punch-line. I think it was there that I heard our interstellar TV and radio signals would die out at around the 60 light year range ... and become virtually undetectable.

      Anyone verify that? Because if that were the case, there could be dozens of Earth-like civilisations out there in our close neighbourhood and we'd never hear each other's episodes of Gilligan's Island.

      report
    3. Peter Miller

      Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

      In reply to Eclipse Now

      As I understand it, SETI was originally looking for a 'beacon' type signal but has broadened its search criteria in recent years to look for lower power RF as well. Even if it is the case, this may well be futile. We've really only been broadcasting radio waves of any significance for a hundred or so years, and the there is a good chance we'll limit them right down to almost nothing as satellites and internet fibre take over most of the broadcast niche in the next few decades. If other civilizations do something similar, that's another needle-in-a-haystack scenario; only a couple of hundred years window for any likelihood of picking up stray broadcast? Those odds are humungously long.

      It doesn't seem to me that the 60 light year limit is likely. There's no physics I know says that electromagnetic signals couldn't just go on forever, pretty much, even if they did get attenuated.

      report
    4. Eclipse Now

      Manager of design firm

      In reply to Peter Miller

      Thanks Peter, some good observations there. How could I forget the internet's affect on radio and TV? On the other hand, don't satellites broadcast all manner of signals down to our TV's and handsets?

      report
    5. Peter Miller

      Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

      In reply to Eclipse Now

      Yes, but satellite broadcasts are much more narrowly focussed, and pointed straight back at the Earth, rather than into space. Radio & tv broadcasts just get splattered around all over the place, and a great deal of the signal goes straight up (in fact, many kinds of conventional radio kind of relies on the idea of broadcasting the signal upwards to get it to bounce off the ionosphere and thereby gain extra range - a certain amount just goes through, though).

      And terrestrial phone systems are very low power, comparatively speaking.

      report
    6. Mark Duffett

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Miller

      These issues are canvassed fairly extensively here: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=16765 (see also several other posts there). An indication of a probable upper limit, at least as far as incidental radio emission is concerned, is given by the following extract:

      "...within a few hundred light years, clues to our existence could be picked up with an antenna the size of Chicago. Benford’s analysis shows that building such an antenna, given what we know of the present value of building an installation like the Square Kilometer Array, would run up a cost comparable to the entire GNP of planet Earth."

      report
    7. Emma Anderson

      Artist and Science Junkie

      In reply to Eclipse Now

      If they're the conquering type with the sort of power we can fear, and actually thinks that about us, they'd probably have terraforming equipment and not give a rat's about our little rock. Plenty more rare metals further away from the sun, and besides, by the time they get here, we'll have all won Darwin awards anyway. Might as well sit back with their Klingon blood wine and let the warp drive do the rest.

      report
  3. Anthony Lonergan

    Teacher

    Don't remember the authors, one was a geologist, the other an astronomer, Univ of Washington(?). I read a book recently titled "Rare Earth" which looked at the numerous conditions required that Earth could produce life: liquid water, plate tectonics, a Jupiter to take asteroid hits, etc. A long list and a persuasive arguement.

    report
  4. Peter Miller

    Digital Artist/Sound Designer/Composer at Scribbletronics

    Paul Davies recent book 'The Eerie Silence' is the most sober take on this situation that I've read in some time. Davies is the chair of the SETI Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup, and a very thoughtful physicist.

    His ultimate conclusion is that the available data points to the fact that we are alone in the universe. So why is he involved with SETI then? Ah, that would be the interesting thing about the book :)

    report
  5. Mark Duffett

    logged in via Facebook

    For mine it's f(l) that will turn out to be very small indeed. Despite enormous recent advances in molecular biology, we still have little real idea how life began, and we're still a long way from creating any sort of artificial life in a laboratory from a standing start. If it's that hard to get going deliberately, what does that say about the prospect of it happening naturally? That and the Fermi Paradox are both telling us that the probability of life arising spontaneously, even given suitable conditions, materials and time, is extremely low.

    report
    1. Mark Duffett

      logged in via Facebook

      In reply to Peter Miller

      Indeed. I'd love to be proved wrong. But that's not the way I'm betting. And if I am to be proved wrong in my lifetime, I reckon it will be by spectroscopic detection of significant amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere of a rocky exoplanet, rather than anywhere in the solar system, if only because the sample size is so much bigger.

      Though of course we must continue to put a high priority on exploration of Europa, because of the implication that you mention.

      report
    2. Emma Anderson

      Artist and Science Junkie

      In reply to Mark Duffett

      Ooh I dunno mate, I reckon there's nanobots on Mars that look like Smurfs

      / joke

      report
  6. Joseph Callingham

    Student of Astrophysics at University of Sydney

    Before anyone takes the Drake Equation too seriously, I suggest looking at the xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/384/ .

    The danger with this "equation" is that not all the parameters are measurable. This limits its use to "what if" scenarios that scientists should be careful being involved in.

    report
  7. Emma Anderson

    Artist and Science Junkie

    How tripped out would it be if we were the aliens.

    report