Drake Equation
- Thread starter fsci123
- Start date
RisingFury
OBSP developer
So, if you know that "we don't know all the variables", then why even bother asking the question?
The results of Drake equation are about as good as your optimism.
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
NO its about the setup and arrangement of variables:facepalm:
RisingFury
OBSP developer
"Setup and arrangement of variables"? What's that supposed to mean?
a*b = b*a for real numbers.
As for the equation itself, it just contains various numbers and fractions, like number of stars in a galaxy, average number of planets per solar syste, fraction of planets capable of supporting life, fraction of planets that develop life,... and of course, the time the life lives, compared to the time their local star can support life...
martins
Orbiter Founder
If you know this, then you should know that
is the wrong question. The Drake equation is simply a collection of parameters we will need to know (or at least have a good guess) in order to estimate the number of inhabited systems within reach of communication. Since most parameters are entirely unknown even in magnitude, the equation effortlessly spans the range from 0 to a couple of billion. It's an example of data-free calculation.
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
The Professor is correct in pointing out that much of the calculation is unitless, I.E Given X number of Observable/Viable planets the likelyhood of discovering life is Y.
We don't know how accurate it is as we have yet to discover proof (I.E extra terrestrial life).
Short of First Contact that's best answer you are going to get.
We don't know how accurate it is as we have yet to discover proof (I.E extra terrestrial life).
Short of First Contact that's best answer you are going to get.
Last edited:
RisingFury
OBSP developer
You're trying to blame the equation for your ignorance!
The equation is fine, it's you that don't have good data to enter into the equation!
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
MY God its martins...
The Drake Equation...
The Rare Earth Equation...
The Drake Equation has N* as star birth per year
The rare earth equation has N* as stars in the MW galaxy at the moment...
The Drake Equation...
The Rare Earth Equation...
The Drake Equation has N* as star birth per year
The rare earth equation has N* as stars in the MW galaxy at the moment...
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 788
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 33
MY God its martins...
The Drake Equation...
The Rare Earth Equation...
The Drake Equation has N* as star birth per year
The rare earth equation has N* as stars in the MW galaxy at the moment...
Is there a point you're trying to make? I'm afraid I'm missing it if you are...
In any case, those are some nifty equations.
Hlynkacg
Aspiring rocket scientist
I am simply pointing out that it is impossible to answer the OPs question regarding the equation's accuracy/inaccuracy with the information currently available. As it stands we have no basis on which to calculate the actual likelyhood of life evolving. Without this data everything else is speculation.
martins
Orbiter Founder
As an improved form of the Drake equation I would suggest this:
[math]
N = N
[/math]
which replaces the collection of unknown parameters on the right hand side with a single one. It also has the advantage of being perfectly accurate.
[math]
N = N
[/math]
which replaces the collection of unknown parameters on the right hand side with a single one. It also has the advantage of being perfectly accurate.
fireballs619
Occam's Taser
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 788
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 33
:lol: Sounds perfectly reasonable to me!
As for Drake's equation, I think that as more data becomes available, it will become more and more useful.
n72.75
Seize the means of computation
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008
- Messages
- 2,872
- Reaction score
- 1,714
- Points
- 128
- Location
- Saco, ME
- Website
- mwhume.space
- Preferred Pronouns
- he/him
Try the drake equation on something with completely know parameters. It should predict what you already know.
Arrowstar
Probenaut
- Joined
- May 23, 2008
- Messages
- 1,785
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I like this form better. Makes calculations so much easier. :lol:
martins
Orbiter Founder
True. Whereas it doesn't predict what we don't already know.
Let's say the equation is correct in the sense that it breaks down the required parameters we will need to figure out. What it doesn't do is help figuring them out, and therefore it doesn't get us any closer to an estimate for N.
fsci123
Future Dubstar and Rocketkid
Wait shouldnt we be measuring the amount of stars in the galaxy instead of star formation...
Sorry drake but it dosnt seem logical!
---------- Post added at 04:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 AM ----------
The drake equation is like me attempting to try to calculate:
How many times will i find a bear tooth in my dogs fur based on the number of dogs in his liter and how many times i discard feta cheese from my burger king burger using a laptop while staying in the rain 19 days earlier with the factor of how many miliseconds i spent eating on the superbowl.
Sorry drake but it dosnt seem logical!
---------- Post added at 04:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:35 AM ----------
The drake equation is like me attempting to try to calculate:
How many times will i find a bear tooth in my dogs fur based on the number of dogs in his liter and how many times i discard feta cheese from my burger king burger using a laptop while staying in the rain 19 days earlier with the factor of how many miliseconds i spent eating on the superbowl.
Last edited:
It's my view that the Drake equation was hugely important, and whatever you think about it, the odds have changed since it was written. Now the reason why I think it was so important has more to do with the Cold War than possible alien technological societies. Getting the purse holders to address a few questions of funding, meant that they had to address a few other questions, to do with the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction.
The aliens destroy themselves, because they are as barking mad as we are. If we destroy ourselves, then there's a perfectly good universe going to waste. I think it was a masterstroke of political p.r. Most likely we should doff our caps to Sagan for this.
Okay, let's say I'm a political purse holder, should I allocate a tiny amount of money to a project SETI. Yes why not. A long shot bet that probably won't pay off. However, what's the cost of a generation of kids not going into space research, because they see it as part of a global arms race? As a cynical cold war warrior, I might even think it a good idea to present my scientists as working on good guy projects, while the enemy thought only of nukes.
The aliens destroy themselves, because they are as barking mad as we are. If we destroy ourselves, then there's a perfectly good universe going to waste. I think it was a masterstroke of political p.r. Most likely we should doff our caps to Sagan for this.
Okay, let's say I'm a political purse holder, should I allocate a tiny amount of money to a project SETI. Yes why not. A long shot bet that probably won't pay off. However, what's the cost of a generation of kids not going into space research, because they see it as part of a global arms race? As a cynical cold war warrior, I might even think it a good idea to present my scientists as working on good guy projects, while the enemy thought only of nukes.
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
The drake equation is a simple statistical equation that calculates the "expectation value" of "number of expected civilizations that could communicate with us" from possibilities that are measured by other sources. Eg raw data mining through astronomical records.
Is it accurate? Only as accurate as the statistical data you feed into it and the model that underlies it. The model is so abstract, that the pure equation must be considered accurate, but every variable can be very in accurate, many variables are also abstract representations of technology - of which nothing is exactly specified how you distill technology into a single possibility variable.
Is it accurate? Only as accurate as the statistical data you feed into it and the model that underlies it. The model is so abstract, that the pure equation must be considered accurate, but every variable can be very in accurate, many variables are also abstract representations of technology - of which nothing is exactly specified how you distill technology into a single possibility variable.
Yeah, the Drake Equation is useless because we don't know the variables, but it's still fun to play around with...
Same with the Rare Earth equation, though Rare Earth is pretty biopessimistic and actually based on assumptions that are becoming outdated. Ward himself is a paleontologist, and his co-author for Rare Earth is an astronomer and astrobiologist- even the qualifications of the latter are somewhat off the mark, as fields more closely pertaining to things such as Rare Earth would probably be fields such as evolutionary biology, astrophysics and planetary science...
In addition, I have a slight feeling Ward dislikes multicellular life in general- see the Medea hypothesis, of which the included mass extinctions have nothing to do with complex life, in some cases even happening long before the Cambrian explosion.
Amusingly, I still got more than 840 000 planets with complex life out of the Rare Earth equation, using values one might consider realistic.
I created my own version of the equation (tossing out some of the more rare-Earth-y aspects), and used more inclusive (but still relatively realistic) values, and got a value of around 1.3 billion planets with complex life. Whether my version of the equation has any validity is another story, considering the fact that I have the mathamatical proficiency of a goldfish.
I get quite annoyed when people cite the Fermi paradox as why intelligent extraterrestrial species cannot exist, or even why no extraterrestrial complex life can exist, either because;
1. They're not blaring radio waves at us at frequencies we're listening in on.
2. They don't posess thousands of Dyson spheres spread around the galaxy in a monumental civilisation.
In light of these, it is important to realise;
- There is no "manifest destiny" for life to evolve into intelligent species. For most of Earth's history, the planet has been devoid of intelligent life and only one evolutionary path has so far lead to a sapient organism.
- Complex life on another planet might actually be prevented from evolving sapience due to it's biological or physiological traits. Plants and fungi on Earth are a good example of this; they are multicellular life, but they lack nervous systems- thus entirely precluding the evolution of intelligence. Just as there is no absolute destiny for life to evolve into intelligent species, there is no certainty that it will evolve into the kingdoms of life that are so important on Earth. At best, extraterrestrial kingdoms will only resemble their terrestrial counterparts vaguely. A planet dominated by photosynthetic slime and football sized mobile sponges would have as much potential to generate a sapient organism as a planet of plants.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society (which potentially leads to a more advanced society through accelerating returns, etc) by geographic, climatic, and environmental factors. This is based on human experience on Earth- Europe became industrial, and the whole of Eurasia saw plenty of technological and cultural advancement, whereas populations in Africa, the Americas, Australia and elsewhere did not. This is not at all a racial argument, but rather a geographic one, as proposed by Jared Diamond. Specific circumstances in Eurasia, specifically Europe, spurred on cultural, political and technological advancement. For example, Greek and Roman civilisations could make use of the Medeterranean sea for transport, in cases when transport over land was often harder. A mild climate fostered the early development of agriculture, and the east-west layout of the continent meant food crops could easily be adapted to new areas. Europe's broken-up geography led to a variety of different nations, with numerous conflicts, also driving development. In desert regions, conditions were too harsh and resources too scarce to often facilitate large, permanent settlements. In tropical regions the climate often meant there wasn't a need to store food for a harsher season.
On another planet, an intelligent species might have things worse. Those on a planet with less water and small, scattered seas would have access to fewer resources, in a generally bland environment, and sea travel would be difficult. Those on a planet with a single, super-continent would be faced with a harsh, bland continental interior, with a continuous coastline. Those on a planet with much water and only small, scattered landmasses would have a hard time grouping together or forming large societies, and effective travel for thousands of kilometers would be difficult. On a planet with a warm, wet climate (not unlike those Earth has experienced during it's "greenhouse" periods) resources may actually be too abundant to warrant civilisation or large-scale agriculture. On a planet with climatic extremes or harsh seasons (think high eccentricity, etc), sapient organisms would have too much trouble just eking out an existence to worry about civilisation.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society due to their biology or physiology. Dolphins are a good example, as they are what one might consider a "candidate" to evolve into a sapient organism. They are highly intelligent, but lack any effective manipulators (i.e. hands), so constructing anything but the simplest of tools would thus be extremely difficult for them. Elephants are another good example, as they are also highly intelligent. They posess a singular manipulator (their trunk, obviously), but already have numerous evolutionary adaptations that make many instances of tool use superfluous (such as tusks to strip bark off of trees, for example), and are also very bulky, which makes constructing shelter or attaining large amounts of food difficult. There are also various intelligent birds- namely certain parrots and corvids (the group including ravens and crows), that exhibit striking intelligence and tool-use capabilities. However, a sapient bird would have trouble engaging in activities requiring great strength, or lifting heavy objects.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society due to resource availability concerns in their environment. Many developments in human history have depended on products from particular organisms (or things originally created from organisms in specific processes, such as oil or coal). Sapient organisms on a planet where "trees" have "wood" based on silicon dioxide (like a diatom shell) would have it worse off in terms of building materials; likewise, they would not have a lot of energy in fossil fuel reserves, their silacious version of "coal" being considerably less energy dense.
- Any sane advanced society would regulate their population, and thus population growth should not occur at the rates proposed by some. This does not mean killing people, or sterilising people, or enforcing draconian and unnatural birth control measures- just encouraging family planning. Even if the population grows and recedes over a period of time (i.e. birth control relaxed, population grows, family planning encouraged, birth rate drops), as long as it says within the means of the civilisation it is healthy.
One might think of population growth to 9-14 billion, over the course of this century, to be bad. But the problem is, it gets even worse as time goes on. In 2000 there was a global population of around 6 billion, and if we assume the growth rate in that year (1.2%) stays steady (it isn't- the growth rate is dropping), we get around 11 billion by 2050. By 2100, we get already nearly 20 billion, and by 2250, nearly 120 billion. By 2500, over 230 billion, and by 3000, a global population of over 90 trillion. Overpopulation is not a minor ecological problem, but a serious one for humanity; even 20 billion, is already getting too large for the planet to support, and over 90 trillion would probably be difficult to fit on the planet, even if everyone was physically pressed together in kilometer high skyscrapers covering the planet.
- Individual star systems can probably hold far more individuals than many think. One author suggested that the solar system could support a population of 10e16 people...
- Stars for colonisation need not be physically close; for example, I would much rather turn my attention to Delta Pavonis or Gliese 581 for colonisation, than Ross 248, even though the latter is physically closer. Due to this, "interstellar empires" might be more spread out and thus harder to detect than one might think.
- Activities of advanced civilisations might not be detectable as one might otherwise think. For example, you can still collect exawatts of stellar energy with relatively small structures, and a "solid shell" Dyson sphere makes sense more in science fiction than science fact (though any considerable Dyson sphere would probably be detectable from a distance, even if composed of smaller, individual power collectors).
- Civilisations may not bother communicating with others.
- Civilisations may not wish to communicate with others, even if they know of them.
- Civilisations might attempt to communicate via means we do not search for (or search for frequently), for example they could use optical means rather than radio ones, or radio frequencies that we don't scan on.
Thus, one might be able to conclude that there are very few advanced civilisations, less few primitive civilisations, even less few subsistance-dwelling sapient organisms, and far less few planets with some sort of complex life.
Complex life might be common, but it's pretty silly to assume that it's so rare as to make Earth one of a handful, or even make Earth special and unique in the entire universe...
Same with the Rare Earth equation, though Rare Earth is pretty biopessimistic and actually based on assumptions that are becoming outdated. Ward himself is a paleontologist, and his co-author for Rare Earth is an astronomer and astrobiologist- even the qualifications of the latter are somewhat off the mark, as fields more closely pertaining to things such as Rare Earth would probably be fields such as evolutionary biology, astrophysics and planetary science...
In addition, I have a slight feeling Ward dislikes multicellular life in general- see the Medea hypothesis, of which the included mass extinctions have nothing to do with complex life, in some cases even happening long before the Cambrian explosion.
Amusingly, I still got more than 840 000 planets with complex life out of the Rare Earth equation, using values one might consider realistic.
I created my own version of the equation (tossing out some of the more rare-Earth-y aspects), and used more inclusive (but still relatively realistic) values, and got a value of around 1.3 billion planets with complex life. Whether my version of the equation has any validity is another story, considering the fact that I have the mathamatical proficiency of a goldfish.
I get quite annoyed when people cite the Fermi paradox as why intelligent extraterrestrial species cannot exist, or even why no extraterrestrial complex life can exist, either because;
1. They're not blaring radio waves at us at frequencies we're listening in on.
2. They don't posess thousands of Dyson spheres spread around the galaxy in a monumental civilisation.
In light of these, it is important to realise;
- There is no "manifest destiny" for life to evolve into intelligent species. For most of Earth's history, the planet has been devoid of intelligent life and only one evolutionary path has so far lead to a sapient organism.
- Complex life on another planet might actually be prevented from evolving sapience due to it's biological or physiological traits. Plants and fungi on Earth are a good example of this; they are multicellular life, but they lack nervous systems- thus entirely precluding the evolution of intelligence. Just as there is no absolute destiny for life to evolve into intelligent species, there is no certainty that it will evolve into the kingdoms of life that are so important on Earth. At best, extraterrestrial kingdoms will only resemble their terrestrial counterparts vaguely. A planet dominated by photosynthetic slime and football sized mobile sponges would have as much potential to generate a sapient organism as a planet of plants.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society (which potentially leads to a more advanced society through accelerating returns, etc) by geographic, climatic, and environmental factors. This is based on human experience on Earth- Europe became industrial, and the whole of Eurasia saw plenty of technological and cultural advancement, whereas populations in Africa, the Americas, Australia and elsewhere did not. This is not at all a racial argument, but rather a geographic one, as proposed by Jared Diamond. Specific circumstances in Eurasia, specifically Europe, spurred on cultural, political and technological advancement. For example, Greek and Roman civilisations could make use of the Medeterranean sea for transport, in cases when transport over land was often harder. A mild climate fostered the early development of agriculture, and the east-west layout of the continent meant food crops could easily be adapted to new areas. Europe's broken-up geography led to a variety of different nations, with numerous conflicts, also driving development. In desert regions, conditions were too harsh and resources too scarce to often facilitate large, permanent settlements. In tropical regions the climate often meant there wasn't a need to store food for a harsher season.
On another planet, an intelligent species might have things worse. Those on a planet with less water and small, scattered seas would have access to fewer resources, in a generally bland environment, and sea travel would be difficult. Those on a planet with a single, super-continent would be faced with a harsh, bland continental interior, with a continuous coastline. Those on a planet with much water and only small, scattered landmasses would have a hard time grouping together or forming large societies, and effective travel for thousands of kilometers would be difficult. On a planet with a warm, wet climate (not unlike those Earth has experienced during it's "greenhouse" periods) resources may actually be too abundant to warrant civilisation or large-scale agriculture. On a planet with climatic extremes or harsh seasons (think high eccentricity, etc), sapient organisms would have too much trouble just eking out an existence to worry about civilisation.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society due to their biology or physiology. Dolphins are a good example, as they are what one might consider a "candidate" to evolve into a sapient organism. They are highly intelligent, but lack any effective manipulators (i.e. hands), so constructing anything but the simplest of tools would thus be extremely difficult for them. Elephants are another good example, as they are also highly intelligent. They posess a singular manipulator (their trunk, obviously), but already have numerous evolutionary adaptations that make many instances of tool use superfluous (such as tusks to strip bark off of trees, for example), and are also very bulky, which makes constructing shelter or attaining large amounts of food difficult. There are also various intelligent birds- namely certain parrots and corvids (the group including ravens and crows), that exhibit striking intelligence and tool-use capabilities. However, a sapient bird would have trouble engaging in activities requiring great strength, or lifting heavy objects.
- Sapient life could be inhibited from developing an industrial society due to resource availability concerns in their environment. Many developments in human history have depended on products from particular organisms (or things originally created from organisms in specific processes, such as oil or coal). Sapient organisms on a planet where "trees" have "wood" based on silicon dioxide (like a diatom shell) would have it worse off in terms of building materials; likewise, they would not have a lot of energy in fossil fuel reserves, their silacious version of "coal" being considerably less energy dense.
- Any sane advanced society would regulate their population, and thus population growth should not occur at the rates proposed by some. This does not mean killing people, or sterilising people, or enforcing draconian and unnatural birth control measures- just encouraging family planning. Even if the population grows and recedes over a period of time (i.e. birth control relaxed, population grows, family planning encouraged, birth rate drops), as long as it says within the means of the civilisation it is healthy.
One might think of population growth to 9-14 billion, over the course of this century, to be bad. But the problem is, it gets even worse as time goes on. In 2000 there was a global population of around 6 billion, and if we assume the growth rate in that year (1.2%) stays steady (it isn't- the growth rate is dropping), we get around 11 billion by 2050. By 2100, we get already nearly 20 billion, and by 2250, nearly 120 billion. By 2500, over 230 billion, and by 3000, a global population of over 90 trillion. Overpopulation is not a minor ecological problem, but a serious one for humanity; even 20 billion, is already getting too large for the planet to support, and over 90 trillion would probably be difficult to fit on the planet, even if everyone was physically pressed together in kilometer high skyscrapers covering the planet.
- Individual star systems can probably hold far more individuals than many think. One author suggested that the solar system could support a population of 10e16 people...
- Stars for colonisation need not be physically close; for example, I would much rather turn my attention to Delta Pavonis or Gliese 581 for colonisation, than Ross 248, even though the latter is physically closer. Due to this, "interstellar empires" might be more spread out and thus harder to detect than one might think.
- Activities of advanced civilisations might not be detectable as one might otherwise think. For example, you can still collect exawatts of stellar energy with relatively small structures, and a "solid shell" Dyson sphere makes sense more in science fiction than science fact (though any considerable Dyson sphere would probably be detectable from a distance, even if composed of smaller, individual power collectors).
- Civilisations may not bother communicating with others.
- Civilisations may not wish to communicate with others, even if they know of them.
- Civilisations might attempt to communicate via means we do not search for (or search for frequently), for example they could use optical means rather than radio ones, or radio frequencies that we don't scan on.
Thus, one might be able to conclude that there are very few advanced civilisations, less few primitive civilisations, even less few subsistance-dwelling sapient organisms, and far less few planets with some sort of complex life.
Complex life might be common, but it's pretty silly to assume that it's so rare as to make Earth one of a handful, or even make Earth special and unique in the entire universe...
Last edited:
Urwumpe
Not funny anymore
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2008
- Messages
- 38,965
- Reaction score
- 3,937
- Points
- 203
- Location
- Wolfsburg
- Preferred Pronouns
- Sire
I wouldn't call it useless, because, if you really look at it, it takes more than a evening to arrive at it as "minimal description of statistical parameters". It is well-thought and well constructed, but just, like many results of basic research, not meant for practical application.
Number theory was also just a mathematical playground until we invented encryption and code warfare. Suddenly it became THE mathematical specialization that really earns you money.
The drake equation isn't different. While it is too early to use in practical work, it is a good start towards new research.
Number theory was also just a mathematical playground until we invented encryption and code warfare. Suddenly it became THE mathematical specialization that really earns you money.
The drake equation isn't different. While it is too early to use in practical work, it is a good start towards new research.
